Example of the fraud of the religion of Christianity( the cult from a Jewish sect) : the Preacher Eddie Long video! This video and action summarizes the inherit ABSURDITY within Christianity. The government of David( classical conservatism ) versus the government of the United States ( classical liberalism )! Any christian government is no better from the Taliban in Afghanistan! Anyone who wants a Christian government would be violating the Constitution of the United States of America!
Why do we all need "curing" in the first place? It seems to me that the trend in this generation (myself included) is an imbalance of neuro-chemicals.
Has anybody ever considered that we're all just animals, and our "desires", "needs", and "emotions" are just "chemical" manifestations ?!?
@cosmicforums According to surveys of British hospitals, one in six doctors will be addicted to alcohol or illegal drugs at some point during their medical career. A full third of junior male doctors and one in five junior female doctors admit to having used cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy or hallucinogenic drugs.
but truth is found in the laboratory by sober men/women
these are the honest ones that owned up to the survey so who knows how many there are
@1952YOU1320TUBE1952 - I have taken many kinds of psycho active drugs. I do not NEED them for peace of mind, and suggesting that a drug will show you "the truth" is quite rediculous. Sure, it may help you find new insights to your life, or help give you closure on experiences you had in the past...but truth is found in the laboratory by sober men/women. It helped give me insights to break away from god belief, religion and superstition.
ayahusaca? Sounds great..wouldnt mind to try it once.
@1952YOU1320TUBE1952 - fine. Then I guess you will no longer be taking medicines created through the scientific method, as that would make you a big fat pig of a hypocrite..wouldnt it?
I don't and won't take the shit you lot put out,Drugs with a mile long list of side affects so you ass wipes can sell them more posion to counter act the shit you gave them in the first place my thats progress,All my medicine comes from plants,as does your's but what you idiots do wiyj it after fuck knows tell me why is there so many researchers in the Amazon jungle.Because the plants know best.
@cosmicforums I use only plant cures I take none of the shite you people concoct drugs with a list of side affects a mile long which in turn you than sell people more of your shite to counter act the first lot of shite.
wow thats progess,we cure the illnes you mask it and make it worse, Tell me why there are so many researcher's in the Amazon because the plants know best,by the way you seemed upset about me mentioning Cancer cures that you white coated wankers have suppressed check next post
Camus had to know that Determinism is true; looking at the universe we only see causality. So human falls under the determinism of the universe. But still; even if we are determinated, life live to the fullest. Enjoy every second you get! We can't see the futere so enjoy life to the fullest! Enjoy every second. Furthermore causality explains where our universe came from: its a effect of a cause. And that cause is a effect of another cause, times infinity. And weconclude therealwayswas something
@SseBb Determinism would only apply if humans could predict and replicate it. Thus since we can never reliably follow the determinate chains of causality, we can not know how true or untrue 'it is'.
Camus was honest. Without God philosophy turns towards despair and absurdity. With out God we have no meaning. I would love to discuss absurdism or philosophy for anyone wanting to discuss.
Existentialism is outdated. Most science researches involving the issue of free will regard it as a rather fake concept. I don't know many neurobiologist accepting the concept of free will as grounded in any sense.
First, you sir, are a liar! You don't know any neurobiologists.
Second, people who think existentialism is passe are simply afraid of its implications... A Fake concept? That's a nonsensical statement–perhaps you mean to say false?
Neurobiology is a field of empirical, explanatory, research.
Freedom of choice, however, is a phenomenological matter; science has failed to penetrate this realm; and it seems (to me), that it cannot...
@buildingm: What I meant was that all the data I've read on the subject suggest that there is no place for free will in science. Also, when I look at life, at how we behave, I can see that we are merely biological robots - we do what we're supposed to, what our instincts or social norms tell us, we don't invent our whims. As for existentialism being "passé" - I haven't heard of any current developings of this idealogy, it doesn't appear in the media, philosophy in general is outdated.
This is what you just claimed—when you see a human, you genetically perceive its distinct biological make-up? And upon this observation you the identify it in a sociologically perspective, you interpret their instincts, and accurately project their actions, according to this set of intel, which is, furthermore, perfectly ordered logically—from which you draw your necessary conclusions....
Just because you are someone who constitutes his or her being according to social norms, standards and expectations, in no implicates anyone else's guilt. If you feel the need to deny your freedom to choose, to kill yourself right now or to paint your fingernails instead, then that's your prerogative. But, the fact remains, we are all free to choose. Just because genetic, social, chemical, etc. forces play a role in our lives does not mitigate the freedom of our choice... (cont)
Hence, our complete freedom of choice, to choose right now, supersedes the facts of our situation; in fact, we are too responsible for the facts of our situation—all of them.
We choose to exist, and insofar as we make this free choice, we fully responsible for it. There are no biological, social, factors which decide anything—in accepting life, we decide our being, us, and us alone.... (cont)
@buildingm: "Complete freedom of choice" - does it mean you believe that mentally sick people are responsible for their misery? Do you think they chose it for themselves? Or do you think that people from Pakistan who have just suffered from great flood are equally "free" and responsible for their current state as Bill Gates is for his situation?
Existentialism is feared by people like you who think they can understand the world logically/scientifically; it's asinine, you impose human laws on this world hoping to coerce some sense out of it. You're afraid of your freedom, so you seek rigid parameters i.e. Bad Faith.
Philosophy is outdated?! No, it is needed more than ever! It is beyond you and the herd because you choose not to think, you just believe "them"—and are happy with what they tell you makes you happy
@buildingm: Nonsense, you don't know me, so you have no right to imply such conclusions. I do not fear existentialism, as there is nothing fearful to it, I can have my own eyes and I see people as completely boring mechanical beings. Do you think that we choose our sexual orientation? Do we think that we choose our talents? Do we choose which social background we come from? No, we don't. The most important decisions were made for us. The little "freedoms" left to us are almost meaningless.
I think it's unreasonable to demand someone investigate ALL religions before coming to embrace a view. How many of our beliefs are formed, having examined ALL of the alternatives? I'd wager not many.
The ancient Greek skeptics believed we should remain agnostic about everything to avoid the anxiety of trying to evaluate every argument and risk being wrong, but no one can ever accuse them of being pragmatic. Like Sartre said, we must choose. Even to refuse to make a choice is to make a choice.
@ElasticGiraffe Hi i just read all ur arguments on this page and i find u highly insightful. But what interests me is how u manage to stay a christian despite embracing causality more so than free will. U did mention that making a leap of faith is no more a suicide than living the absurd. i would probably agree to that, only that i strongly feel that to believe that there is god, we first must acknowledge that our existence are the wants of his rather than ours. And any little form of free will
..we're entitled to only comes thereafter, which means that without our consent, we've been extracted out to exist in this world. The concept of sin is prevalent in christianity as in most religion, isn't it unjust then for us to be punished for our actions when we first did not ask to exist? Plus, if god almighty despises evil, wouldn't he have created us incapable of it? Lastly, theres millions of ppl out there that have not been reached by christianity, does that also means that god is unfair
? These are the juvenile questions that have been boggling my mind and after reading ur past arguments, i thought probably ure the best person to give me a hand. its been a year since ur last post here so i'm kinda hopeful that u'd reply..thanks
First of all, Sartre - though the most rationalist of the existentialistic thinkers - was not a big fan of secular Enlightenment philosophy. It was the religious thinkers of the era who were trying to preserve free will and combat determinism, not the secular thinkers.
Second, Sartre's philosophy states that life is objectively meaningless, that morality doesn't matter unless it's made up by the individual (he was inconsistent on this), and that "other people" are what's wrong with existence.
I think what's so problematic about Sartre's existentialism is that he seems to find it immoral to make "excuses" for yourself, yet he believes that all morality is subjectively relative. His position on the Algerian War seemed inconsistent with his ethics.
It makes no sense to me that he was a radical individualist while at the same time a devout Marxist. It was his devotion to totalitarianism that killed his friendship with Camus. So I also think his philosophy conflicted with his politics.
You did this project for an Intro class? Dang. Great job.
Interestingly, Camus considered Kierkegaard more of an absurdist than an existentialist. Kierkegaard would probably classify Camus as exemplifying the more reflective feminine form of despair, and assert that Sisyphus could never be a "happy" individual without either constructing an artificial framework of meaning or drifting into a shallow, unreflective life of immediacy -- and even then, he is in despair.
In defense of K, I would argue that making the leap of faith is not philosophical suicide any more than living the absurd is philosophical suicide. Irrationalism grips us no matter what, so the leap of faith is not a plunge into irrationality -- it is necessary to rid the self of despair.
I think a key thing to note with Camus is that his absurdism is not a metaphysical doctrine -- it is derived from a classically skeptical epistemology. This might be where he differs from Nietzsche and Sartre.
I don't understand how taking a leap of faith is ridding the self of despair... to me it seems to just be a way of forming something concrete out of an existence from which we can't discern anything.
However, I will say that as an epistemological skeptic I don't find Absurdism any more convincing than taking a leap of faith. It seems to me that, since we don't know anything, any philosophies that we create are fallible because of the fundamental inability we have to rationalize our existence.
For Kierkegaard, despair is alienation from the true self, which is made in the image of God. By taking the leap of faith into Christ, we understand ourselves as we truly are, and thus, rid ourselves of despair. It isn't so much an emotion for Kierkegaard, although as we pass from a living in the aesthetic realm only to contemplation of the Absurd, the feeling of dread sets in. This is the "sickness unto death." It is possible to be sick without being aware of that fact.
Absurdism is exactly what you're talking about. It is philosophical suicide, in Camus' view, to either take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith or attempt to construct meaning in an objectively meaningless universe, like Sartre. The only positive thing Absurdism states is that life has value although it has no meaning. Its value is derived from "revolting" against the Absurd, carving out an existence for yourself even though there is no point to it. Living itself is the point to life, and that's all.
I guess what I meant was that absurdists seem to believe that they know, for sure, that they don't know. Personally I see this as taking a step beyond epistemological skepticism; to me even to believe that you can't know anything is a way of rationalizing our existence. In other words, it sounds to me that absurdists are saying definitely maybe, whereas I'm saying maybe maybe.
Even skeptics like Sextus Empiricus admitted that we can know things in our immediate experience. If you doubt, then you at least have knowledge of your doubting. The Absurd, I believe, is in our immediate experience. We know that we long for meaning to our lives, but we also know that the world as we experience it does not satisfy that longing.
If I'm not mistaken (haha :P), only the Academics (and maybe Pyrrho?) went so far as to say that no knowledge is possible at all.
If I interpret him correctly, Camus is not stating flat out, "There is no objective meaning to our lives or the world." He is saying that we can't know whether there is or not, and therefore the question is irrelevant.
Most people classify Camus as an atheist, but I get the impression from reading The Myth of Sisyphus that he is more of an agnostic. Certainly, he is a "practical" atheist, but he is also a committed skeptic.
I guess that's what separates me from skeptics; to me it seems reasonable to doubt whether or not you really doubt. Also, I agree with your conjecture that Camus was most likely agnostic. His belief that life MIGHT have inherit meaning seems to profess to that fact. By the way... haha @ 'If I'm not mistaken' : P skeptic humor...
Kierkegaard smells. I am convinced he is only known today because people enjoy pronouncing his name. And, I must confess, it is quite fun to say.
I am an ignorant slob though- I have only read "The Sickness unto Death", and I found it so ridiculous, I don't think I could possibly justify reading another word of his writing.
Viva Shakespeare (who said just about everything any philosopher ever did, and made it fun as hell to read)
Continental works can be difficult to get into if you're used to reading analytic philosophy. The continental tradition is broader in its scope and, unlike the Anglo-American tradition, more concerned with profundity than precision.
The Sickness unto Death is probably my favorite piece of philosophy... but it isn't easy to understand. The intro is, I believe, intentionally obscure because he is mocking Hegel (who is a lot more "out there" than Kierkegaard and is his philosophical nemesis).
Every existentialistic philosopher owes a huge debt to Kierkegaard. You may think his philosophy is ridiculous, but in the Sickness he anticipates Sartre's existentialism to a T in his self-assertive, rebellious despair; I also think his reflective, suicidal despair anticipates Camus. Despair and the Absurd share a lot in common. So I find Kierkegaard to be brilliant, almost prophetic.
His name is pretty fun to say, too. It literally means "churchyard," the Danish equivalent to "graveyard."
I don't recall having difficulty understanding The Sickness Unto Death.
Kierkegaard goes off on humanity- as a part time misanthrope, I really enjoyed his critique of humanity and especially middle class society.
He lost me when he turned to Christianity for answers.
I happen to think Christianity is a moronic belief system (no offense intended)- so when Kierkegaard goes there for answers, he lost all of my respect.
I don't know how you get a critique of middle class society out of The Sickness unto Death. Marx was an Hegelian, and Kierkegaard reviled Hegel. The two were contemporaries, but I think it is unlikely that Marx influenced him.
So you have no respect for Christian philosophers? Do you realize how many great philosophers have been Christians? Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley, to name a few greats. Is their philosophy worthless because of their faith?
Kierkegaard, like the later Camus, points out a contradiction between the human longing for meaning and the cold indifference of the world. All of us must deal with this fact of existence. Sartre said to create your own meaning - Kierkegaard exposed this as arbitrary and self-deceptive. Camus said to just "deal" with it and keep on living - Kierkegaard, however, found the condition unlivable, and Camus' own life showed that he couldn't live with it either. Kierkegaard proposed that we...
take a leap of faith, that is, acknowledge that the world is objectively meaningful, even though we do not perceive meaning. It is the only way not to despair - and the self, the self created in the Divine image will cease to be alienated from itself, the self of experience in the seemingly meaningless world. The self begins to "rest transparently in the power that established it."
What's so moronic about that? It is (in K's thought) the necessary solution to the problem of the human condition.
"He lost me when he turned to Christianity for answers. . .when Kierkegaard goes there for answers, he lost all of my respect."
Kierkegaard believes that faith is not a rational move - but still a necessary one if the "sickness unto death" is ever to be cured. If you do not accept his solution to the problem, what is yours?
"I happen to think Christianity is a moronic belief system (no offense intended)"
I agree with much of his analysis of modern humanity. It's his answers that I find nonsensical. I am not a Christian, so it is quite obvious that Kierkegaard should appear nonsensical to me, as he did to Camus, who writes, in his Myth of Sisyphus essay, "Kierkegaard was swallowed up in his god".
How did Kierkegaard expose Sartre's call to create one's own meaning?
Camus admired Kierkegaard, though. While I don't remember if or where Camus said in The Myth of Sisyphus that he was "swallowed up in his God," I do remember that he said that Kierkegaard had an affinity for the Absurd. Camus respected Christian philosophers, but he clearly rejected the legitimacy of faith. Both Kierkegaard's leap of faith AND Sartre's self-creation are ways to commit philosophical suicide according to Absurdism.
Apparently you know Camus' criticisms of your (and Sartre's) position - it is cowardice, a refusal to live in the certain reality of the Absurd. Kierkegaard believed that attempting to create a meaningful existence (which he calls the masculine form of despair) building "castles in the air." The self is entirely arbitrary and can be deconstructed in an instant. It is artificial meaning. I suggest rereading the end of The Sickness for Kierkegaard's entire, beautifully written analysis.
Well, I'm dealing with a translation, so the fact that I didn't find the writing "beautiful" is no knock on Kierkegaard.
However, if I am looking for beautiful writing, I have plenty of Shakespeare on hand.
Take care.
I don't suspect I'll go back to Kierkegaard- as I already stated, I am not a Christian, and subsequently, his philosophy seems utterly ridiculous (as it should appear to any non-Christian).
You don't know how I got a critique of middle class society out of sickness unto death?
Dude, Kierkegaard spends half the book calling the middle class "petty bourgeois".
On page 71 of my copy- he mentions the "petty bourgeois" EIGHT TIMES- beginning with "petty bourgeois vulgarity and triviality".
I question the sincerity of those great thinker's beliefs. Remember, back then, one risked a great deal by coming out against religion. How do you know they weren't faking for their own sake?
While I'll have to check the context for "petty bourgeoisie," it is well known that Kierkegaard was disgusted with the pervasive Christian culture of Denmark. He thought his fellow Lutherans were too rationalistic, casual, and comfortable with their faith. I think it is likely that these are the people to whom he is referring. Kierkegaard was thoroughly apolitical, in contrast to other existentialists, like Nietzsche and Sartre.
It is difficult to read The Sickness Unto Death and not walk away with the impression that Kierkegaard is a rabid misanthrope who hates most people passionately.
I don't think he "hates" most people, but I think he considers most people to be lost, in despair, and content to remain so.
I've lent out my copy of The Sickness, and I don't know offhand which translation I have, but Kierkegaard certainly has a way of painting pictures with words.
I've read some secondary material on Camus which suggests that he greatly respected thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Augustine, although he disagreed with them on important points - a bit more tolerant than Sartre.
And yes, Shakespeare writes beautifully as well, but I don't see what that has anything to do with.
What I don't understand is that you feel you can't respect a philosopher with whom you disagree. You even suggested that Christian philosophers must be intellectually dishonest. Why do you "question the sincerity" of a thinker simply because you reject his or her conclusion? Those men weren't being "forced" into anything by the Roman Catholic Church. They were the intelligentsia of the Church.
All medieval Christian theology is, to a certain extent, Augustinian, especially in the West. He set the standard, as it were. Augustine was a Neo-Platonist but a brilliant philosopher in his own right. Both Abelard (a master logician who developed conceptualism as an answer to the problem of universals) and Aquinas (a synthesizer of Aristotle who developed natural law ethics) were considered heretics at one point for their views; Abelard was even excommunicated (but this was later lifted).
I could go on: Descartes (who strongly influences your own position because Sartre was explicitly a Cartesian), Locke (I don't even need to tell you all the things he came up with), Berkeley (who developed subjective idealism), Leibniz (who invented calculus around the same time Newton did), Newton (who cared more about Biblical studies than he did about physics), etc.
Do all of these men deserve ridicule because they were devoted Christians?
Obviously Sartre didn't reject Descartes thought simply because he was a Christian philosopher.
Remember also before you claim Camus as an ally, he considered Sartre's position to be as philosophically suicidal as that of Kierkegaard. He also became an anti-Communist, which severed his friendship with Sartre. Sartre based his entire system upon atheism, and Camus (though he is often, I think wrongly, labeled an atheist) was an agnostic, as he was a radical skeptic.
I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to have a COMPLETE and TOTAL lack of respect for organized religion, including Christianity, in the year 2009.
In fact, I find it wholly UNREASONABLE to still believe in the bronze age fairy tales that explained a complicated world to very, very, very ignorant human beings
We are still very, very, very ignorant- but we no longer require supernatural explanations for thunderstorms or earthquakes- as people did when these religions were "invented"
I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you. It is not stupid to believe that the world is intentional. Atheists are not on a higher intellectual plane simply because they disbelieve in God. There are ignorant Christians and ignorant atheists.
I consider Enlightenment modernism to be an ignorant position that has been thoroughly undermined by postmodern criticism... but modernists are not stupid by necessity.
Don't trash-talk philosophers just because you were an English major. That's immature. Philosophers are not "scared people who hide their fears in erudition." One could psychoanalyze Nietzsche or Sartre in that same manner (Camus did).
If we all had a "COMPLETE and TOTAL lack of respect" for positions with which we disagree, there would never be meaningful discussion or debate. Since you said that you have no respect for any Christian thinker (which implies me), then why should I talk to you?
I apologize for my contentious immaturity. I don't like Christianity, and I have excellent reasons for feeling that way. That doesn't excuse being 5 years old though.
I find the idea of actually believing the old and new testament is, frankly, not rational. I don't know how else to say it. Am I a super-genius? No. But I am smart enough to have read the bible and dismissed it as utter malarkey? Absolutely.
I don't think it's ignorant to say there is some higher being who created the world. I don't THINK it's true, but it might be. Nobody knows. Period.
What offends my intelligence is when people get SPECIFIC about this possible god- when they say the god that created the world is our god and he told us this and the rest of you must die.
I brought up Shakespeare because I am not a philosophy major like you- I was an English major.
I also find it kind of hilarious that Shakespeare covered almost every topic any philosopher did before or since, and that one could attain a deeper understanding of humanity by studying him rather than studying scared people who hide their fear in layers of erudition (as so many tend to in philosophy)
"I tend to believe we must create our own meanings."
I could easily say, "In 2010, we don't need an Axial Age superstition like free will to explain our actions. We may be 'very, very, very ignorant' of the causes of our decisions, but obviously everything is locked in a causal web. Sartre's philosophy is nothing but wishful thinking. We can't possibly 'create our meanings.' Meanings are determined for us, and we foolishly think that we had something to do with it."
I never used the term free will- free will implies that the will might not be free- which is something I utterly reject.
We, as rational human beings, must find our own reason for living in the year 2009. Many still choose god, but I find that to be intellectually lazy and rather ignorant.
I haven't read Sartre. I tried reading Being and Nothingness many years ago and I couldn't understand a single sentence. I have read a TON since, so I should go back and try again.
I have only read excerpts from Being and Nothingness, but from what I understand a person should be acquainted with Heidegger's Being and Time (which makes Sartre's work look childishly simplistic) before plunging into it. Sartre's essay, "Existentialism Is a Humanism," is very comprehensible, though, so I would recommend reading that if you've not already. For Sartre, the self is radically free, because he thinks of it as a Cartesian substratum which is not subject to deterministic forces.
What I mean by "meaning determined for us" is that we cannot choose our own essence, as Sartre would have it. We do not define our own lives. Our lives are defined for us and our choices decided for us because we are the mindless products of indifferent, deterministic causality, just like everything else. When we "think" we have options, we really don't; the action we believe we choose is the inevitable result of an unbreakable chain of causation.
Sartre solved this by positing that the self is, in fact, a nothingness. Since causal laws don't affect "nothingnesses," we have free will. But he relies firmly on Cartesian dualism, and Descartes' dualism is rooted in Platonic-Christian thought concerning the soul. This, plus the idea that there is no God to define my life, so I am obliged to define it myself.
If you follow Sartre's line of reasoning, there are some consequences you might not be comfortable with...
if all of our actions are determined, then we are never responsible for what we do.
I think I shall totally reject that hypothesis and stick with we are in control of what we do- and are therefore responsible for it.
There is NO reason to believe my actions are controlled. I have absolutely no reason to suspect that- and frankly, even if they are, the illusion I have of freedom beats the improbably knowledge that someone is pulling my strings.
You unwarrantedly assume that we must be accountable. Why must we? Since there is no evidence for the existence of moral imperatives, why not embrace moral nihilism (or at least skepticism)? You invent personal freedom from mindless physics because you need it, not because it is rational. You make a leap of faith greater even than Kierkegaard's in The Sickness, believing in libertarian free will when there is no evidence for it and the entire scientific tradition is against it.
Determinism does not say that anyone is pulling your strings, only that your choices were already decided at the Big Bang. You confuse me, because you seem to think that religiosity is an outdated mode of thought, yet free will could not possibly be. But secularists who like to think of their belief systems as state-of-the-art often reject them both as superstitions. You can't be a scientistic modernist and an Sartrean existentialist without running into inconsistency, especially over free will.
Christian faith implies that there are objective moral standards. In my opinion, if morals aren't objective in nature, they aren't morals at all, but rather aesthetic preferences. Were I an atheist or agnostic, I would gladly concede determinism, give up on free will, and consequently reject the notion of morality. But I am a Christian. I believe in metaphysical freedom and accountability because it is implied by other things I believe about the nature and purpose of the world.
You said you would rather believe in free will, even if it were an illusion. And the same goes for me and Christianity. Who are you, then, to criticize me for it?
This is sort of along the lines of Kierkegaard's reasoning. The leap of faith is not justified because it is rational. It is justified because it is necessary, even more necessary than believing in free will. After all, the latter is only to preserve one's own irrational views about morality; the former is to cure spiritual sickness.
my belief in free will has no consequences for other people, and is harmless. Your belief in Christianity has consequences for other people - because Christianity says everyone but a few select will suffer eternal damnation.
THAT is why my leap of faith is less intellectually and morally offensive than yours.
If Christians and other religious fools didn't go around fucking the world up- then it wouldn't matter. But they do, so it does.
How were my choices determined at the big bang? That sounds insane- please elaborate.
Thanks.
Lastly, I don't pretend to know how we got here or where we go when we die. I don't know. What I do know is the following: you don't know either. What offends me is when people pretend to know things they cannot- that is the very definition of religion- a nice packaged explanation for things we will probably never understand.
"How were my choices determined at the big bang? That sounds insane- please elaborate."
Cause and effect. Any behavior that isn't deterministic is chaotic. Look up the term "causal determinism" in an encyclopedia, and read the explanation.
"if there is no evidence for free will, where is the evidence against it?"
The evidence against it is that a choice would have to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause external to itself. It violates Ockham's razor.
"my belief in free will has no consequences for other people, and is harmless."
Sartre believed it did, but that aspect of his philosophy is explained in Being and Nothingness.
The (in)famous 18th century, antireligious atheist and hard determinist, Baron d'Holbach, likened illusion of free will to a fly that lands on the front of a carriage and imagines himself to be controlling where it goes. All there is, is matter, motion, and physical laws.
Here's a very simple argument. You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. What you want is determined by external factors, and you always do what you're externally determined to want most of all. Therefore, your will is not free. It has no special power outside of causal necessity. How would you respond to this argument?
"Your belief in Christianity has consequences for other people - because Christianity says everyone but a few select will suffer eternal damnation."
First of all, I'm a universalist. The doctrine of everlasting damnation is not essential to the faith, and it wasn't embraced by many, if not most, of the ante-Nicene theologians. It was more commonly taught by the Latin interpreters (Tertullian, Augustine) than by the earliest Greek interpreters (Clement, Origen, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, et al).
Second, it is irrelevant. The truth of the Holocaust is offensive, but it's true nonetheless. You find everlasting damnation morally offensive, and many Christians would agree with you. I do, but I don't think you have an ethical leg to stand on if you believe in creating your own morals, as Sartre did. As a matter of fact, it's imperialistic of you to try to force others into your moral paradigm. They should decide what is right and what is wrong for themselves, create their own ethics.
Christianity does have consequences, but oppression isn't one of them. Christian faith no more caused the crusades than atheism caused revolutionary socialism, which destroyed tens of millions of lives in the 20th century, over 40 million between Russia and China alone. Even Hitler doesn't compare to that, and there were plenty of other Communist revolutions which "fucked up" the world. On the contrary, Christianity actually prohibits such violence - that's one reason Marx opposed religion.
Wicked men will kill for whatever they hold to be ultimate: money, race, political power, or God. The Communists did it over economics, the Nazis over race, and both over political power. If self-professed Christians causing wars is an argument for opposing Christianity, must we not also be anarchists?
I really don't know what is to be gained by continuing this conversation. I have answered every question you've posed to me, but you don't answer any of my questions. They are deep, philosophical questions which challenge your worldview, yet you seem to skip over them and elect to slide in an insult or act that everything you believe is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Please review my posts and respond to my questions because I'm seeing no point in commenting anymore.
I agree. I also appreciate you putting up with my rudeness. I am trying to deal with my hostility towards organized religions, and unfortunately, have not reached a place yet where I have transcended resentment.
I don't have any real answers for the big questions either, so I guess I shouldn't begrudge people for taking comfort in stories.
"However, two sources of perpetual conflict among humans are: religion and nationalism."
The one source of perpetual conflict among humans is human nature. There is nothing inherently violent about acknowledging a power that transcends the world and gives meaning to it. Nor is there anything wrong with supporting your nation and wanting to see it become strong and prosperous. But human nature, its lust for power, perverts all our institutions and ideologies.
Now there are some religions that are inherently violent, and there are some violent people who claim to embrace a peaceful faith. It is an unfair generalization to say that all religion is bad and become antireligious, just as it is to say that politics is bad and become an anarchist. And I think you would agree that there are more corrupt politicians than there are corrupt people of faith. The common denominator is the human drive for power and wealth.
"Anything that separates us and tells people they are different from other people is inherently divisive and always ends in war. ALWAYS."
But we ARE different. Color separates us. Political and religious beliefs separate us. Cultures separate us. Class separates us. Even if we lived in a uniracial, totalitarian, Communist state (that actually worked) with a single culture, people would simply find other differences to fight over.
Conflict is inevitable. If there are any differences at all left in that utopia, the people will exaggerate them.
Take American politics for example. Politically, the United States is a centrist country, but you would never know it to hear people and politicians talk. Those left of center are called radicals and compared to communists. Those right of center are called radicals and compared to fascists - even though both sides are moderate by historical standards.
Religion should not be singled out as exceptionally divisive. Human beings can take any difference and make it a "divisive" issue. Religious belief is of ultimate importance to people because it speaks to the existential questions, and anything of ultimate importance is bound to be exceptionally divisive. "But didn't you just say...?" Yes, allow me to clarify. There will always be SOMETHING that is of ultimate importance. Religion/existential philosophy is the only thing that holds that...
position legitimately. For Marx, what held that position is economics, and he believed violence was entirely appropriate. For Hitler, it was race, and he too believed it entailed violence. For Jesus, however, it was love of God and neighbor; hatred of the Other, so essential to Marx and Hitler, is antithetical to Christ's message. The 20th century, the most violent in world history, was also the most anti-Christian (both explicitly in ideology and implicitly in practice).
So I've given you examples of religion's replacement. Who is God's replacement? Consider the personality cults of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. They were revered by their respective nations as nothing less than gods. They were the faces of their religions. Mao's "Little Red Book" was absolutely Red Chinese holy scripture. When God and supernaturalistic religion are expelled, we improvise and create nationalistic religion. Can a godless society sustain itself? I don't know. History has never seen one.
"How do you reconcile the peace and love of Christ's message with the violence and intolerance of Revelations??"
First of all, the book is called Revelation (no "s"). Second, it does contain violence, but I don't see what's so intolerant about it. Third, I would rather not get into a debate about Biblical interpretation with you. It is a very complicated thing to interpret an ancient text in a dead foreign language and an unfamiliar genre, and we have already wandered a long way from Absurdism.
I can't argue philosophy with you in a very knowledgeable way, but American politics is an area I am an expert in.
I disagree with your analysis of our country's politics. I believe the American people are slightly left of center, and the ruling class is far right of center.
It's important to distinguish between the two- as our class war is essentially what defines us.
"I can't argue philosophy with you in a very knowledgeable way"
That much is apparent. :P But this IS a video about philosophy, and we have been arguing philosophy (and history, as well) for quite a long time now.
"but American politics is an area I am an expert in."
An expert? Well, Gallup and I disagree with your analysis of the American political landscape. According to a Gallup poll published yesterday, conservatism is the #1 political ideology with which Americans identify. The...
study showed that almost twice as many Americans identify as conservative (40%) as identify as liberal (21%), and 36% identify as moderate. By global standards, the United States is definitely a right-of-center nation. Furthermore, the highest payed members of Congress are Democrats. I believe Dems dominate the extremes, the upper and lower classes, whereas the Reps appeal to the middle class. Personally I'm a member of a rapidly growing political faction, Independents.
Your analysis defies logic. BOTH parties cater to the top 1%, and are wholly owned by the large business interests that run our country- mostly banks, but also insurance, defense, etc.
I would LOVE to see you provide examples of republican legislation that helped the middle class.
Good luck!
As for independents, I think that's great- but who are you going to vote for? You can call yourself independent- but come voting day, the choice remains- corporate whore A (dem), or corporate whore B (R).
"provide examples of republican legislation that helped the middle class"
The base of the Republican party is the middle class, hence why the Democrats constantly try to break that hold with their rhetoric. No intelligent politician or political party would alienate one of the more influential and essential voter groups in this country. And trust me, if the Republicans had done that, they would never be elected into office anywhere or at any level. Key word RHETORIC
The evidance is substantial over history, you really need to learn something about American government because your ignorance wont cut it forever. A specific key example would be the Republican party ie. Lincoln freeing the slaves while Dems wanted to retain slavery. The republicans freeing the slaves was a direct attack on the rich and aimed to please the lower and middle classes.
Do you honestly think the Democrat party resembles in any way what it did 150 years ago, the point I'm trying to get across while you blame the republicans is that both parties are equally fucked up and both parties have become extremely corrupt recently. Neither have done anything recently to help anybody but themselves.
yes, and those 60's "dixie democrats" have become 2010 modern republicans.
I agree with jiffylube- BOTH parties are a joke who don't give two shits about the rest of us- but this argument that the dems are the racist party doesn't make ANY sense.
I've been to a teabagging party- they are very racist.
The modern republican party is wrought with racism- both overt as well as subliminal.
The Republican party of Lincoln was liberal in the same way as the Dems today. They switched ideaologies in the 20th centuries. You should read up on the history of american politics.
You can't blame those people in anyway; probably because they were all christians, and the bible teaches us that slavery can be part of our normal society. And it's just a normal part of our lives. In that perspect you can't blame them.
Probably you hear i'm a Secular humanist and anti-theïst :P. Abrahamic religion are a cursh for humankind. It's a escape to the "fake of luck," Absurdism has this conclusion. People want to escape from the 'nothingness' so they make up faith in a invisable man.
Contemporary politicians? Neither side cares about the people. Both sides work for Wall Street...generally speaking though liberalism is more for "the little man" than conservatism.
that poll proves nothing- the word "liberal" has been attacked for decades, and the poll shows the long term effects of that rhetoric.
If you look at the ISSUES- war, environment, worker protection, regulation of financial sector, etc- the people of this country are LEFT of center, and the leaders are far right.
"the people of this country are LEFT of center, and the leaders are far right."
Bullshit this statment makes no sense at all America is very close cut on left and right political views just look at the numbers on regestered voters, if everybody was leftists we'd be communists by now. Furthermore, your statment about leaders being far right equally makes no sense because look at Obama he's one of the most leftist presidents in recent history.
Example of the fraud of the religion of Christianity( the cult from a Jewish sect) : the Preacher Eddie Long video! This video and action summarizes the inherit ABSURDITY within Christianity. The government of David( classical conservatism ) versus the government of the United States ( classical liberalism )! Any christian government is no better from the Taliban in Afghanistan! Anyone who wants a Christian government would be violating the Constitution of the United States of America!
cris750 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Is existence absurd ? Or something worse that can not even be grasped by words? And if everything is absurd, then isn't language as well ?
KhyberBoy09 1 month ago
Terribly narrated. Sound like a fast speaking sissy girl. And the music is way too loud.
MaxGravitas 1 month ago
life |līf|
noun ( pl. lives |līvz|)
1. the result of a tedious exercise in the absurd.
skippydeenice 2 months ago
Hey!I go to MATC Madison. Small world.
Giodude93 3 months ago
what if i choose not to live by accepting the absurd? are the only option is Suicide?
sevenfoldevil 3 months ago
@sevenfoldevil You can just ignore it. Which I imagine is what most people do.
Giodude93 3 months ago
i cant hear what hes saying.........
Inrxz 5 months ago
The key to absurdism is...
Sonofkong0 5 months ago
what is the music?
Innovater6 6 months ago in playlist Existentialism--absurdism-09
I wanted to find out the truth to this video, but gave up because I reasoned that it was completely pointless.
chica476 7 months ago
Why do we all need "curing" in the first place? It seems to me that the trend in this generation (myself included) is an imbalance of neuro-chemicals.
Has anybody ever considered that we're all just animals, and our "desires", "needs", and "emotions" are just "chemical" manifestations ?!?
82airbornesoldier 7 months ago
@82airbornesoldier My friend...THAT IS ABSURD! ABSURD I tell you...
phester061594452 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cosmicforums According to surveys of British hospitals, one in six doctors will be addicted to alcohol or illegal drugs at some point during their medical career. A full third of junior male doctors and one in five junior female doctors admit to having used cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy or hallucinogenic drugs.
but truth is found in the laboratory by sober men/women
these are the honest ones that owned up to the survey so who knows how many there are
dont make me laugh
Bye simply
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
open your mouth when speaking, force air through your throat
longfootbuddy 11 months ago
Please take the music off.
absorbcreate 11 months ago
i firstly know word Absurdism at this vid. i feel this position suits for me. thank you for uploading !
coffeebreakist 11 months ago
I too am an absurdist. Because of absurdism I am an agnostic/atheist. Absurdism, to me, makes the most sense of what I see around me
cosmicforums 11 months ago
@cosmicforums
Take Ayahusaca and know the truth and peace of mind.
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
@1952YOU1320TUBE1952 - I have taken many kinds of psycho active drugs. I do not NEED them for peace of mind, and suggesting that a drug will show you "the truth" is quite rediculous. Sure, it may help you find new insights to your life, or help give you closure on experiences you had in the past...but truth is found in the laboratory by sober men/women. It helped give me insights to break away from god belief, religion and superstition.
ayahusaca? Sounds great..wouldnt mind to try it once.
cosmicforums 9 months ago
@cosmicforums @cosmicforums ...
but truth is found in the laboratory by sober men/women
dont make me laugh
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
@1952YOU1320TUBE1952 - fine. Then I guess you will no longer be taking medicines created through the scientific method, as that would make you a big fat pig of a hypocrite..wouldnt it?
cosmicforums 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
I don't and won't take the shit you lot put out,Drugs with a mile long list of side affects so you ass wipes can sell them more posion to counter act the shit you gave them in the first place my thats progress,All my medicine comes from plants,as does your's but what you idiots do wiyj it after fuck knows tell me why is there so many researchers in the Amazon jungle.Because the plants know best.
your about as cosmic as a dog turd
buy simply one live in darkness
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
@cosmicforums I use only plant cures I take none of the shite you people concoct drugs with a list of side affects a mile long which in turn you than sell people more of your shite to counter act the first lot of shite.
wow thats progess,we cure the illnes you mask it and make it worse, Tell me why there are so many researcher's in the Amazon because the plants know best,by the way you seemed upset about me mentioning Cancer cures that you white coated wankers have suppressed check next post
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cosmicforums @cosmicshite
Google Cancer the Forbidden-Cures
suppressed by the medical mafia people like you is that why you PM me about the cures
it show's what a set a twats you lot are
I do my research as well your about as cosmic as my shite.
Bye simply one
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
@cosmicforums @cosmicforums ...
but truth is found in the laboratory by sober men/women
dont make me laugh It helped give me insights to break away from god belief, religion and superstition.
none of these applys to me
Ayahusaca is not a drug its the mother of all plant medicines
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
Comment removed
1952YOU1320TUBE1952 9 months ago
hh
petrolfire 1 year ago
Camus had to know that Determinism is true; looking at the universe we only see causality. So human falls under the determinism of the universe. But still; even if we are determinated, life live to the fullest. Enjoy every second you get! We can't see the futere so enjoy life to the fullest! Enjoy every second. Furthermore causality explains where our universe came from: its a effect of a cause. And that cause is a effect of another cause, times infinity. And weconclude therealwayswas something
SseBb 1 year ago
@SseBb
Causality of physics btw
SseBb 1 year ago
@SseBb Determinism would only apply if humans could predict and replicate it. Thus since we can never reliably follow the determinate chains of causality, we can not know how true or untrue 'it is'.
landgabriel 5 months ago
I wanted to watch the whole video but the volume and quality of the narrator's voice was made it a strain on my ears.
landgabriel 1 year ago 19
@landgabriel try headphones and suspension of reality
Sonofkong0 5 months ago
@Sonofkong0 So you like to whip your reality dick out and slap other people's realities with it? Objectivist rapist.
landgabriel 5 months ago
Camus was honest. Without God philosophy turns towards despair and absurdity. With out God we have no meaning. I would love to discuss absurdism or philosophy for anyone wanting to discuss.
924142707 1 year ago
If god did exist, it wouldn't change a lot, because only a tyrannical god could create such a hellish world as this for us.
asmodeus585 1 year ago
This guy is just reading a book, and poorly at that. Re-record the Voice over again you lazy slob :)
lifeinpictures 1 year ago
Existentialism is outdated. Most science researches involving the issue of free will regard it as a rather fake concept. I don't know many neurobiologist accepting the concept of free will as grounded in any sense.
asmodeus585 1 year ago
@asmodeus585
First, you sir, are a liar! You don't know any neurobiologists.
Second, people who think existentialism is passe are simply afraid of its implications... A Fake concept? That's a nonsensical statement–perhaps you mean to say false?
Neurobiology is a field of empirical, explanatory, research.
Freedom of choice, however, is a phenomenological matter; science has failed to penetrate this realm; and it seems (to me), that it cannot...
So hush you're futile and perfidious prattle!
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm: What I meant was that all the data I've read on the subject suggest that there is no place for free will in science. Also, when I look at life, at how we behave, I can see that we are merely biological robots - we do what we're supposed to, what our instincts or social norms tell us, we don't invent our whims. As for existentialism being "passé" - I haven't heard of any current developings of this idealogy, it doesn't appear in the media, philosophy in general is outdated.
asmodeus585 1 year ago
@asmodeus585
This is what you just claimed—when you see a human, you genetically perceive its distinct biological make-up? And upon this observation you the identify it in a sociologically perspective, you interpret their instincts, and accurately project their actions, according to this set of intel, which is, furthermore, perfectly ordered logically—from which you draw your necessary conclusions....
buildingm 1 year ago
@asmodeus585
Just because you are someone who constitutes his or her being according to social norms, standards and expectations, in no implicates anyone else's guilt. If you feel the need to deny your freedom to choose, to kill yourself right now or to paint your fingernails instead, then that's your prerogative. But, the fact remains, we are all free to choose. Just because genetic, social, chemical, etc. forces play a role in our lives does not mitigate the freedom of our choice... (cont)
buildingm 1 year ago
@asmodeus585
Hence, our complete freedom of choice, to choose right now, supersedes the facts of our situation; in fact, we are too responsible for the facts of our situation—all of them.
We choose to exist, and insofar as we make this free choice, we fully responsible for it. There are no biological, social, factors which decide anything—in accepting life, we decide our being, us, and us alone.... (cont)
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm: "Complete freedom of choice" - does it mean you believe that mentally sick people are responsible for their misery? Do you think they chose it for themselves? Or do you think that people from Pakistan who have just suffered from great flood are equally "free" and responsible for their current state as Bill Gates is for his situation?
asmodeus585 1 year ago
@asmodeus585
Existentialism is feared by people like you who think they can understand the world logically/scientifically; it's asinine, you impose human laws on this world hoping to coerce some sense out of it. You're afraid of your freedom, so you seek rigid parameters i.e. Bad Faith.
Philosophy is outdated?! No, it is needed more than ever! It is beyond you and the herd because you choose not to think, you just believe "them"—and are happy with what they tell you makes you happy
buildingm 1 year ago 11
@buildingm: Nonsense, you don't know me, so you have no right to imply such conclusions. I do not fear existentialism, as there is nothing fearful to it, I can have my own eyes and I see people as completely boring mechanical beings. Do you think that we choose our sexual orientation? Do we think that we choose our talents? Do we choose which social background we come from? No, we don't. The most important decisions were made for us. The little "freedoms" left to us are almost meaningless.
asmodeus585 1 year ago
Comment removed
crazyfighter7280 1 year ago
Is there any way to shut the over powering music off ?
artistlesliepierce 1 year ago
@artistlesliepierce
I can't even really hear what he's saying because of the music >_<.
BlueBerryWizard 1 year ago
This is excellent. I wish i could fuck this video
greeniem 1 year ago
@greeniem lol i wish i got video reviews like that
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
alternalife blog com
existential times
matlab22 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Facebook is messing up for me again. =/ Oh well. I have a couple more replies to post. I'll come back later and try again.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I think it's unreasonable to demand someone investigate ALL religions before coming to embrace a view. How many of our beliefs are formed, having examined ALL of the alternatives? I'd wager not many.
The ancient Greek skeptics believed we should remain agnostic about everything to avoid the anxiety of trying to evaluate every argument and risk being wrong, but no one can ever accuse them of being pragmatic. Like Sartre said, we must choose. Even to refuse to make a choice is to make a choice.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
@ElasticGiraffe Hi i just read all ur arguments on this page and i find u highly insightful. But what interests me is how u manage to stay a christian despite embracing causality more so than free will. U did mention that making a leap of faith is no more a suicide than living the absurd. i would probably agree to that, only that i strongly feel that to believe that there is god, we first must acknowledge that our existence are the wants of his rather than ours. And any little form of free will
TheKildonan 11 months ago
..we're entitled to only comes thereafter, which means that without our consent, we've been extracted out to exist in this world. The concept of sin is prevalent in christianity as in most religion, isn't it unjust then for us to be punished for our actions when we first did not ask to exist? Plus, if god almighty despises evil, wouldn't he have created us incapable of it? Lastly, theres millions of ppl out there that have not been reached by christianity, does that also means that god is unfair
TheKildonan 11 months ago
? These are the juvenile questions that have been boggling my mind and after reading ur past arguments, i thought probably ure the best person to give me a hand. its been a year since ur last post here so i'm kinda hopeful that u'd reply..thanks
TheKildonan 11 months ago
@tristramshandy3
Gah. Facebook is messing up and not letting me post replies right now. I'll try again later. =/
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
First of all, Sartre - though the most rationalist of the existentialistic thinkers - was not a big fan of secular Enlightenment philosophy. It was the religious thinkers of the era who were trying to preserve free will and combat determinism, not the secular thinkers.
Second, Sartre's philosophy states that life is objectively meaningless, that morality doesn't matter unless it's made up by the individual (he was inconsistent on this), and that "other people" are what's wrong with existence.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I think what's so problematic about Sartre's existentialism is that he seems to find it immoral to make "excuses" for yourself, yet he believes that all morality is subjectively relative. His position on the Algerian War seemed inconsistent with his ethics.
It makes no sense to me that he was a radical individualist while at the same time a devout Marxist. It was his devotion to totalitarianism that killed his friendship with Camus. So I also think his philosophy conflicted with his politics.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
You did this project for an Intro class? Dang. Great job.
Interestingly, Camus considered Kierkegaard more of an absurdist than an existentialist. Kierkegaard would probably classify Camus as exemplifying the more reflective feminine form of despair, and assert that Sisyphus could never be a "happy" individual without either constructing an artificial framework of meaning or drifting into a shallow, unreflective life of immediacy -- and even then, he is in despair.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
In defense of K, I would argue that making the leap of faith is not philosophical suicide any more than living the absurd is philosophical suicide. Irrationalism grips us no matter what, so the leap of faith is not a plunge into irrationality -- it is necessary to rid the self of despair.
I think a key thing to note with Camus is that his absurdism is not a metaphysical doctrine -- it is derived from a classically skeptical epistemology. This might be where he differs from Nietzsche and Sartre.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I don't understand how taking a leap of faith is ridding the self of despair... to me it seems to just be a way of forming something concrete out of an existence from which we can't discern anything.
However, I will say that as an epistemological skeptic I don't find Absurdism any more convincing than taking a leap of faith. It seems to me that, since we don't know anything, any philosophies that we create are fallible because of the fundamental inability we have to rationalize our existence.
12StringGuitar 2 years ago
For Kierkegaard, despair is alienation from the true self, which is made in the image of God. By taking the leap of faith into Christ, we understand ourselves as we truly are, and thus, rid ourselves of despair. It isn't so much an emotion for Kierkegaard, although as we pass from a living in the aesthetic realm only to contemplation of the Absurd, the feeling of dread sets in. This is the "sickness unto death." It is possible to be sick without being aware of that fact.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Absurdism is exactly what you're talking about. It is philosophical suicide, in Camus' view, to either take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith or attempt to construct meaning in an objectively meaningless universe, like Sartre. The only positive thing Absurdism states is that life has value although it has no meaning. Its value is derived from "revolting" against the Absurd, carving out an existence for yourself even though there is no point to it. Living itself is the point to life, and that's all.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I guess what I meant was that absurdists seem to believe that they know, for sure, that they don't know. Personally I see this as taking a step beyond epistemological skepticism; to me even to believe that you can't know anything is a way of rationalizing our existence. In other words, it sounds to me that absurdists are saying definitely maybe, whereas I'm saying maybe maybe.
12StringGuitar 2 years ago
Even skeptics like Sextus Empiricus admitted that we can know things in our immediate experience. If you doubt, then you at least have knowledge of your doubting. The Absurd, I believe, is in our immediate experience. We know that we long for meaning to our lives, but we also know that the world as we experience it does not satisfy that longing.
If I'm not mistaken (haha :P), only the Academics (and maybe Pyrrho?) went so far as to say that no knowledge is possible at all.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
If I interpret him correctly, Camus is not stating flat out, "There is no objective meaning to our lives or the world." He is saying that we can't know whether there is or not, and therefore the question is irrelevant.
Most people classify Camus as an atheist, but I get the impression from reading The Myth of Sisyphus that he is more of an agnostic. Certainly, he is a "practical" atheist, but he is also a committed skeptic.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I guess that's what separates me from skeptics; to me it seems reasonable to doubt whether or not you really doubt. Also, I agree with your conjecture that Camus was most likely agnostic. His belief that life MIGHT have inherit meaning seems to profess to that fact. By the way... haha @ 'If I'm not mistaken' : P skeptic humor...
12StringGuitar 2 years ago
Kierkegaard smells. I am convinced he is only known today because people enjoy pronouncing his name. And, I must confess, it is quite fun to say.
I am an ignorant slob though- I have only read "The Sickness unto Death", and I found it so ridiculous, I don't think I could possibly justify reading another word of his writing.
Viva Shakespeare (who said just about everything any philosopher ever did, and made it fun as hell to read)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
@tristramshandy3 super super "like" on the shakespeare quote, i would expand it to include psycology as well.
direwolf661 2 years ago
Continental works can be difficult to get into if you're used to reading analytic philosophy. The continental tradition is broader in its scope and, unlike the Anglo-American tradition, more concerned with profundity than precision.
The Sickness unto Death is probably my favorite piece of philosophy... but it isn't easy to understand. The intro is, I believe, intentionally obscure because he is mocking Hegel (who is a lot more "out there" than Kierkegaard and is his philosophical nemesis).
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Every existentialistic philosopher owes a huge debt to Kierkegaard. You may think his philosophy is ridiculous, but in the Sickness he anticipates Sartre's existentialism to a T in his self-assertive, rebellious despair; I also think his reflective, suicidal despair anticipates Camus. Despair and the Absurd share a lot in common. So I find Kierkegaard to be brilliant, almost prophetic.
His name is pretty fun to say, too. It literally means "churchyard," the Danish equivalent to "graveyard."
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I don't recall having difficulty understanding The Sickness Unto Death.
Kierkegaard goes off on humanity- as a part time misanthrope, I really enjoyed his critique of humanity and especially middle class society.
He lost me when he turned to Christianity for answers.
I happen to think Christianity is a moronic belief system (no offense intended)- so when Kierkegaard goes there for answers, he lost all of my respect.
Have a great day.
Viva Montaigne!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I don't know how you get a critique of middle class society out of The Sickness unto Death. Marx was an Hegelian, and Kierkegaard reviled Hegel. The two were contemporaries, but I think it is unlikely that Marx influenced him.
So you have no respect for Christian philosophers? Do you realize how many great philosophers have been Christians? Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley, to name a few greats. Is their philosophy worthless because of their faith?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Kierkegaard, like the later Camus, points out a contradiction between the human longing for meaning and the cold indifference of the world. All of us must deal with this fact of existence. Sartre said to create your own meaning - Kierkegaard exposed this as arbitrary and self-deceptive. Camus said to just "deal" with it and keep on living - Kierkegaard, however, found the condition unlivable, and Camus' own life showed that he couldn't live with it either. Kierkegaard proposed that we...
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
take a leap of faith, that is, acknowledge that the world is objectively meaningful, even though we do not perceive meaning. It is the only way not to despair - and the self, the self created in the Divine image will cease to be alienated from itself, the self of experience in the seemingly meaningless world. The self begins to "rest transparently in the power that established it."
What's so moronic about that? It is (in K's thought) the necessary solution to the problem of the human condition.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
"He lost me when he turned to Christianity for answers. . .when Kierkegaard goes there for answers, he lost all of my respect."
Kierkegaard believes that faith is not a rational move - but still a necessary one if the "sickness unto death" is ever to be cured. If you do not accept his solution to the problem, what is yours?
"I happen to think Christianity is a moronic belief system (no offense intended)"
Your opinion. :P
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Yes, I am stating my own opinions.
I tend to believe we must create our own meanings. You say Kierkegaard exposed that as self-deceptive. How did he manage that?
Have a great day.
Buddhism- now with 1/3 the calories of Christianity!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I agree with much of his analysis of modern humanity. It's his answers that I find nonsensical. I am not a Christian, so it is quite obvious that Kierkegaard should appear nonsensical to me, as he did to Camus, who writes, in his Myth of Sisyphus essay, "Kierkegaard was swallowed up in his god".
How did Kierkegaard expose Sartre's call to create one's own meaning?
I am interested in that.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Camus admired Kierkegaard, though. While I don't remember if or where Camus said in The Myth of Sisyphus that he was "swallowed up in his God," I do remember that he said that Kierkegaard had an affinity for the Absurd. Camus respected Christian philosophers, but he clearly rejected the legitimacy of faith. Both Kierkegaard's leap of faith AND Sartre's self-creation are ways to commit philosophical suicide according to Absurdism.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Apparently you know Camus' criticisms of your (and Sartre's) position - it is cowardice, a refusal to live in the certain reality of the Absurd. Kierkegaard believed that attempting to create a meaningful existence (which he calls the masculine form of despair) building "castles in the air." The self is entirely arbitrary and can be deconstructed in an instant. It is artificial meaning. I suggest rereading the end of The Sickness for Kierkegaard's entire, beautifully written analysis.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Well, I'm dealing with a translation, so the fact that I didn't find the writing "beautiful" is no knock on Kierkegaard.
However, if I am looking for beautiful writing, I have plenty of Shakespeare on hand.
Take care.
I don't suspect I'll go back to Kierkegaard- as I already stated, I am not a Christian, and subsequently, his philosophy seems utterly ridiculous (as it should appear to any non-Christian).
Life is the best.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I am reading the Myth of Sisyphus right now. The quote was direct from the text (translated by Justin O'Brien, Vintage, 1991, p.45)
What makes you say Camus admired Kierkegaard?
If he rejected the legitimacy of faith (Camus), why would he respect Christian philosophers?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
You don't know how I got a critique of middle class society out of sickness unto death?
Dude, Kierkegaard spends half the book calling the middle class "petty bourgeois".
On page 71 of my copy- he mentions the "petty bourgeois" EIGHT TIMES- beginning with "petty bourgeois vulgarity and triviality".
I question the sincerity of those great thinker's beliefs. Remember, back then, one risked a great deal by coming out against religion. How do you know they weren't faking for their own sake?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
While I'll have to check the context for "petty bourgeoisie," it is well known that Kierkegaard was disgusted with the pervasive Christian culture of Denmark. He thought his fellow Lutherans were too rationalistic, casual, and comfortable with their faith. I think it is likely that these are the people to whom he is referring. Kierkegaard was thoroughly apolitical, in contrast to other existentialists, like Nietzsche and Sartre.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
It is difficult to read The Sickness Unto Death and not walk away with the impression that Kierkegaard is a rabid misanthrope who hates most people passionately.
I can't say I blame him :)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I don't think he "hates" most people, but I think he considers most people to be lost, in despair, and content to remain so.
I've lent out my copy of The Sickness, and I don't know offhand which translation I have, but Kierkegaard certainly has a way of painting pictures with words.
I've read some secondary material on Camus which suggests that he greatly respected thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Augustine, although he disagreed with them on important points - a bit more tolerant than Sartre.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
And yes, Shakespeare writes beautifully as well, but I don't see what that has anything to do with.
What I don't understand is that you feel you can't respect a philosopher with whom you disagree. You even suggested that Christian philosophers must be intellectually dishonest. Why do you "question the sincerity" of a thinker simply because you reject his or her conclusion? Those men weren't being "forced" into anything by the Roman Catholic Church. They were the intelligentsia of the Church.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
All medieval Christian theology is, to a certain extent, Augustinian, especially in the West. He set the standard, as it were. Augustine was a Neo-Platonist but a brilliant philosopher in his own right. Both Abelard (a master logician who developed conceptualism as an answer to the problem of universals) and Aquinas (a synthesizer of Aristotle who developed natural law ethics) were considered heretics at one point for their views; Abelard was even excommunicated (but this was later lifted).
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I could go on: Descartes (who strongly influences your own position because Sartre was explicitly a Cartesian), Locke (I don't even need to tell you all the things he came up with), Berkeley (who developed subjective idealism), Leibniz (who invented calculus around the same time Newton did), Newton (who cared more about Biblical studies than he did about physics), etc.
Do all of these men deserve ridicule because they were devoted Christians?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Obviously Sartre didn't reject Descartes thought simply because he was a Christian philosopher.
Remember also before you claim Camus as an ally, he considered Sartre's position to be as philosophically suicidal as that of Kierkegaard. He also became an anti-Communist, which severed his friendship with Sartre. Sartre based his entire system upon atheism, and Camus (though he is often, I think wrongly, labeled an atheist) was an agnostic, as he was a radical skeptic.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
yes.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to have a COMPLETE and TOTAL lack of respect for organized religion, including Christianity, in the year 2009.
In fact, I find it wholly UNREASONABLE to still believe in the bronze age fairy tales that explained a complicated world to very, very, very ignorant human beings
We are still very, very, very ignorant- but we no longer require supernatural explanations for thunderstorms or earthquakes- as people did when these religions were "invented"
Take care
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you. It is not stupid to believe that the world is intentional. Atheists are not on a higher intellectual plane simply because they disbelieve in God. There are ignorant Christians and ignorant atheists.
I consider Enlightenment modernism to be an ignorant position that has been thoroughly undermined by postmodern criticism... but modernists are not stupid by necessity.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Don't trash-talk philosophers just because you were an English major. That's immature. Philosophers are not "scared people who hide their fears in erudition." One could psychoanalyze Nietzsche or Sartre in that same manner (Camus did).
If we all had a "COMPLETE and TOTAL lack of respect" for positions with which we disagree, there would never be meaningful discussion or debate. Since you said that you have no respect for any Christian thinker (which implies me), then why should I talk to you?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I apologize for my contentious immaturity. I don't like Christianity, and I have excellent reasons for feeling that way. That doesn't excuse being 5 years old though.
I find the idea of actually believing the old and new testament is, frankly, not rational. I don't know how else to say it. Am I a super-genius? No. But I am smart enough to have read the bible and dismissed it as utter malarkey? Absolutely.
Have a great day.
Viva Shakespeare!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I don't think it's ignorant to say there is some higher being who created the world. I don't THINK it's true, but it might be. Nobody knows. Period.
What offends my intelligence is when people get SPECIFIC about this possible god- when they say the god that created the world is our god and he told us this and the rest of you must die.
That's just NUTS! (in my obnoxious opinion)
:)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I brought up Shakespeare because I am not a philosophy major like you- I was an English major.
I also find it kind of hilarious that Shakespeare covered almost every topic any philosopher did before or since, and that one could attain a deeper understanding of humanity by studying him rather than studying scared people who hide their fear in layers of erudition (as so many tend to in philosophy)
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"I tend to believe we must create our own meanings."
I could easily say, "In 2010, we don't need an Axial Age superstition like free will to explain our actions. We may be 'very, very, very ignorant' of the causes of our decisions, but obviously everything is locked in a causal web. Sartre's philosophy is nothing but wishful thinking. We can't possibly 'create our meanings.' Meanings are determined for us, and we foolishly think that we had something to do with it."
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I never used the term free will- free will implies that the will might not be free- which is something I utterly reject.
We, as rational human beings, must find our own reason for living in the year 2009. Many still choose god, but I find that to be intellectually lazy and rather ignorant.
I haven't read Sartre. I tried reading Being and Nothingness many years ago and I couldn't understand a single sentence. I have read a TON since, so I should go back and try again.
Viva Miles Davis too!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I have only read excerpts from Being and Nothingness, but from what I understand a person should be acquainted with Heidegger's Being and Time (which makes Sartre's work look childishly simplistic) before plunging into it. Sartre's essay, "Existentialism Is a Humanism," is very comprehensible, though, so I would recommend reading that if you've not already. For Sartre, the self is radically free, because he thinks of it as a Cartesian substratum which is not subject to deterministic forces.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Well, first of all it's the year 2010 now. lol
What I mean by "meaning determined for us" is that we cannot choose our own essence, as Sartre would have it. We do not define our own lives. Our lives are defined for us and our choices decided for us because we are the mindless products of indifferent, deterministic causality, just like everything else. When we "think" we have options, we really don't; the action we believe we choose is the inevitable result of an unbreakable chain of causation.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Sartre solved this by positing that the self is, in fact, a nothingness. Since causal laws don't affect "nothingnesses," we have free will. But he relies firmly on Cartesian dualism, and Descartes' dualism is rooted in Platonic-Christian thought concerning the soul. This, plus the idea that there is no God to define my life, so I am obliged to define it myself.
If you follow Sartre's line of reasoning, there are some consequences you might not be comfortable with...
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
such as...?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
if all of our actions are determined, then we are never responsible for what we do.
I think I shall totally reject that hypothesis and stick with we are in control of what we do- and are therefore responsible for it.
There is NO reason to believe my actions are controlled. I have absolutely no reason to suspect that- and frankly, even if they are, the illusion I have of freedom beats the improbably knowledge that someone is pulling my strings.
Live free or die- even if it's an illusion.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"if all of our actions are determined, then we are never responsible for what we do."
This position is called incompatibilism. It holds that determinism and free will cannot be reconciled - and I agree.
"I think I shall totally reject that hypothesis and stick with we are in control of what we do"
On what grounds?
"There is NO reason to believe my actions are controlled."
Why should people's choices be outside of causal necessity when, evidently, nothing else is?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
You unwarrantedly assume that we must be accountable. Why must we? Since there is no evidence for the existence of moral imperatives, why not embrace moral nihilism (or at least skepticism)? You invent personal freedom from mindless physics because you need it, not because it is rational. You make a leap of faith greater even than Kierkegaard's in The Sickness, believing in libertarian free will when there is no evidence for it and the entire scientific tradition is against it.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Determinism does not say that anyone is pulling your strings, only that your choices were already decided at the Big Bang. You confuse me, because you seem to think that religiosity is an outdated mode of thought, yet free will could not possibly be. But secularists who like to think of their belief systems as state-of-the-art often reject them both as superstitions. You can't be a scientistic modernist and an Sartrean existentialist without running into inconsistency, especially over free will.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Christian faith implies that there are objective moral standards. In my opinion, if morals aren't objective in nature, they aren't morals at all, but rather aesthetic preferences. Were I an atheist or agnostic, I would gladly concede determinism, give up on free will, and consequently reject the notion of morality. But I am a Christian. I believe in metaphysical freedom and accountability because it is implied by other things I believe about the nature and purpose of the world.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
You said you would rather believe in free will, even if it were an illusion. And the same goes for me and Christianity. Who are you, then, to criticize me for it?
This is sort of along the lines of Kierkegaard's reasoning. The leap of faith is not justified because it is rational. It is justified because it is necessary, even more necessary than believing in free will. After all, the latter is only to preserve one's own irrational views about morality; the former is to cure spiritual sickness.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
my belief in free will has no consequences for other people, and is harmless. Your belief in Christianity has consequences for other people - because Christianity says everyone but a few select will suffer eternal damnation.
THAT is why my leap of faith is less intellectually and morally offensive than yours.
If Christians and other religious fools didn't go around fucking the world up- then it wouldn't matter. But they do, so it does.
Take care!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
How were my choices determined at the big bang? That sounds insane- please elaborate.
Thanks.
Lastly, I don't pretend to know how we got here or where we go when we die. I don't know. What I do know is the following: you don't know either. What offends me is when people pretend to know things they cannot- that is the very definition of religion- a nice packaged explanation for things we will probably never understand.
Life is the best!
Viva Duke Ellington.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"How were my choices determined at the big bang? That sounds insane- please elaborate."
Cause and effect. Any behavior that isn't deterministic is chaotic. Look up the term "causal determinism" in an encyclopedia, and read the explanation.
"if there is no evidence for free will, where is the evidence against it?"
The evidence against it is that a choice would have to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause external to itself. It violates Ockham's razor.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
"my belief in free will has no consequences for other people, and is harmless."
Sartre believed it did, but that aspect of his philosophy is explained in Being and Nothingness.
The (in)famous 18th century, antireligious atheist and hard determinist, Baron d'Holbach, likened illusion of free will to a fly that lands on the front of a carriage and imagines himself to be controlling where it goes. All there is, is matter, motion, and physical laws.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Here's a very simple argument. You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want. What you want is determined by external factors, and you always do what you're externally determined to want most of all. Therefore, your will is not free. It has no special power outside of causal necessity. How would you respond to this argument?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
"Your belief in Christianity has consequences for other people - because Christianity says everyone but a few select will suffer eternal damnation."
First of all, I'm a universalist. The doctrine of everlasting damnation is not essential to the faith, and it wasn't embraced by many, if not most, of the ante-Nicene theologians. It was more commonly taught by the Latin interpreters (Tertullian, Augustine) than by the earliest Greek interpreters (Clement, Origen, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, et al).
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Second, it is irrelevant. The truth of the Holocaust is offensive, but it's true nonetheless. You find everlasting damnation morally offensive, and many Christians would agree with you. I do, but I don't think you have an ethical leg to stand on if you believe in creating your own morals, as Sartre did. As a matter of fact, it's imperialistic of you to try to force others into your moral paradigm. They should decide what is right and what is wrong for themselves, create their own ethics.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Christianity does have consequences, but oppression isn't one of them. Christian faith no more caused the crusades than atheism caused revolutionary socialism, which destroyed tens of millions of lives in the 20th century, over 40 million between Russia and China alone. Even Hitler doesn't compare to that, and there were plenty of other Communist revolutions which "fucked up" the world. On the contrary, Christianity actually prohibits such violence - that's one reason Marx opposed religion.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Wicked men will kill for whatever they hold to be ultimate: money, race, political power, or God. The Communists did it over economics, the Nazis over race, and both over political power. If self-professed Christians causing wars is an argument for opposing Christianity, must we not also be anarchists?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I really don't know what is to be gained by continuing this conversation. I have answered every question you've posed to me, but you don't answer any of my questions. They are deep, philosophical questions which challenge your worldview, yet you seem to skip over them and elect to slide in an insult or act that everything you believe is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Please review my posts and respond to my questions because I'm seeing no point in commenting anymore.
Viva Jesus Christ. ;P
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Comment removed
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I agree. I also appreciate you putting up with my rudeness. I am trying to deal with my hostility towards organized religions, and unfortunately, have not reached a place yet where I have transcended resentment.
I don't have any real answers for the big questions either, so I guess I shouldn't begrudge people for taking comfort in stories.
Adios.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I agree that even men without religion can be "evil".
However, two sources of perpetual conflict among humans are: religion and nationalism.
Anything that separates us and tells people they are different from other people is inherently divisive and always ends in war. ALWAYS.
Will people still fight if religion and nationalism are gone? Of course. Will they fight as often? Doubtful.
Who knows really.
Life is still fun.
I should hike again today!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"However, two sources of perpetual conflict among humans are: religion and nationalism."
The one source of perpetual conflict among humans is human nature. There is nothing inherently violent about acknowledging a power that transcends the world and gives meaning to it. Nor is there anything wrong with supporting your nation and wanting to see it become strong and prosperous. But human nature, its lust for power, perverts all our institutions and ideologies.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Now there are some religions that are inherently violent, and there are some violent people who claim to embrace a peaceful faith. It is an unfair generalization to say that all religion is bad and become antireligious, just as it is to say that politics is bad and become an anarchist. And I think you would agree that there are more corrupt politicians than there are corrupt people of faith. The common denominator is the human drive for power and wealth.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
"Anything that separates us and tells people they are different from other people is inherently divisive and always ends in war. ALWAYS."
But we ARE different. Color separates us. Political and religious beliefs separate us. Cultures separate us. Class separates us. Even if we lived in a uniracial, totalitarian, Communist state (that actually worked) with a single culture, people would simply find other differences to fight over.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Conflict is inevitable. If there are any differences at all left in that utopia, the people will exaggerate them.
Take American politics for example. Politically, the United States is a centrist country, but you would never know it to hear people and politicians talk. Those left of center are called radicals and compared to communists. Those right of center are called radicals and compared to fascists - even though both sides are moderate by historical standards.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Religion should not be singled out as exceptionally divisive. Human beings can take any difference and make it a "divisive" issue. Religious belief is of ultimate importance to people because it speaks to the existential questions, and anything of ultimate importance is bound to be exceptionally divisive. "But didn't you just say...?" Yes, allow me to clarify. There will always be SOMETHING that is of ultimate importance. Religion/existential philosophy is the only thing that holds that...
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
position legitimately. For Marx, what held that position is economics, and he believed violence was entirely appropriate. For Hitler, it was race, and he too believed it entailed violence. For Jesus, however, it was love of God and neighbor; hatred of the Other, so essential to Marx and Hitler, is antithetical to Christ's message. The 20th century, the most violent in world history, was also the most anti-Christian (both explicitly in ideology and implicitly in practice).
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
So I've given you examples of religion's replacement. Who is God's replacement? Consider the personality cults of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. They were revered by their respective nations as nothing less than gods. They were the faces of their religions. Mao's "Little Red Book" was absolutely Red Chinese holy scripture. When God and supernaturalistic religion are expelled, we improvise and create nationalistic religion. Can a godless society sustain itself? I don't know. History has never seen one.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
How do you reconcile the peace and love of Christ's message with the violence and intolerance of Revelations??
I think you are interpreting Christianity as it exists to you- some universalist version that MOST Christians don't subscribe to.
Maybe YOUR version of Christianity is loving and tolerant, but MOST Christians don't act that way.
Take care.
Going hiking again!!!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"How do you reconcile the peace and love of Christ's message with the violence and intolerance of Revelations??"
First of all, the book is called Revelation (no "s"). Second, it does contain violence, but I don't see what's so intolerant about it. Third, I would rather not get into a debate about Biblical interpretation with you. It is a very complicated thing to interpret an ancient text in a dead foreign language and an unfamiliar genre, and we have already wandered a long way from Absurdism.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I can't argue philosophy with you in a very knowledgeable way, but American politics is an area I am an expert in.
I disagree with your analysis of our country's politics. I believe the American people are slightly left of center, and the ruling class is far right of center.
It's important to distinguish between the two- as our class war is essentially what defines us.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"I can't argue philosophy with you in a very knowledgeable way"
That much is apparent. :P But this IS a video about philosophy, and we have been arguing philosophy (and history, as well) for quite a long time now.
"but American politics is an area I am an expert in."
An expert? Well, Gallup and I disagree with your analysis of the American political landscape. According to a Gallup poll published yesterday, conservatism is the #1 political ideology with which Americans identify. The...
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
study showed that almost twice as many Americans identify as conservative (40%) as identify as liberal (21%), and 36% identify as moderate. By global standards, the United States is definitely a right-of-center nation. Furthermore, the highest payed members of Congress are Democrats. I believe Dems dominate the extremes, the upper and lower classes, whereas the Reps appeal to the middle class. Personally I'm a member of a rapidly growing political faction, Independents.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Your analysis defies logic. BOTH parties cater to the top 1%, and are wholly owned by the large business interests that run our country- mostly banks, but also insurance, defense, etc.
I would LOVE to see you provide examples of republican legislation that helped the middle class.
Good luck!
As for independents, I think that's great- but who are you going to vote for? You can call yourself independent- but come voting day, the choice remains- corporate whore A (dem), or corporate whore B (R).
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"provide examples of republican legislation that helped the middle class"
The base of the Republican party is the middle class, hence why the Democrats constantly try to break that hold with their rhetoric. No intelligent politician or political party would alienate one of the more influential and essential voter groups in this country. And trust me, if the Republicans had done that, they would never be elected into office anywhere or at any level. Key word RHETORIC
jiffylube1980 2 years ago
nonsense. nonsense without evidence.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
The evidance is substantial over history, you really need to learn something about American government because your ignorance wont cut it forever. A specific key example would be the Republican party ie. Lincoln freeing the slaves while Dems wanted to retain slavery. The republicans freeing the slaves was a direct attack on the rich and aimed to please the lower and middle classes.
jiffylube1980 2 years ago 3
Oh, pardon me. I thought we were discussing contemporary American politics.
Do you really think the republican party of the 1860's resembles, in any way, that of the republican party today?
What has the republican party done for middle or working class americans over the last two generations?
I think it's cute that you went back 150 years.
Have a nice day :)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Do you honestly think the Democrat party resembles in any way what it did 150 years ago, the point I'm trying to get across while you blame the republicans is that both parties are equally fucked up and both parties have become extremely corrupt recently. Neither have done anything recently to help anybody but themselves.
jiffylube1980 2 years ago
1960's civil rights legislation was opposed by the "dixie democrats"
mebe84 2 years ago
yes, and those 60's "dixie democrats" have become 2010 modern republicans.
I agree with jiffylube- BOTH parties are a joke who don't give two shits about the rest of us- but this argument that the dems are the racist party doesn't make ANY sense.
I've been to a teabagging party- they are very racist.
The modern republican party is wrought with racism- both overt as well as subliminal.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
The Republican party of Lincoln was liberal in the same way as the Dems today. They switched ideaologies in the 20th centuries. You should read up on the history of american politics.
Vercene 2 years ago
Not in the least bit a statement like this is completely ignorant and with no factual backup.
jiffylube1980 2 years ago
You can't blame those people in anyway; probably because they were all christians, and the bible teaches us that slavery can be part of our normal society. And it's just a normal part of our lives. In that perspect you can't blame them.
Probably you hear i'm a Secular humanist and anti-theïst :P. Abrahamic religion are a cursh for humankind. It's a escape to the "fake of luck," Absurdism has this conclusion. People want to escape from the 'nothingness' so they make up faith in a invisable man.
SseBb 1 year ago
Contemporary politicians? Neither side cares about the people. Both sides work for Wall Street...generally speaking though liberalism is more for "the little man" than conservatism.
Hirfel 2 years ago
that poll proves nothing- the word "liberal" has been attacked for decades, and the poll shows the long term effects of that rhetoric.
If you look at the ISSUES- war, environment, worker protection, regulation of financial sector, etc- the people of this country are LEFT of center, and the leaders are far right.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"the people of this country are LEFT of center, and the leaders are far right."
Bullshit this statment makes no sense at all America is very close cut on left and right political views just look at the numbers on regestered voters, if everybody was leftists we'd be communists by now. Furthermore, your statment about leaders being far right equally makes no sense because look at Obama he's one of the most leftist presidents in recent history.
jiffylube1980 2 years ago
we are NOT different in any substantial way. Human beings are the same in Nebraska as they are in Calcutta.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago