So you are telling me that without an imaginary god, you would "steal wives, and rape cattle?" I tend to think more highly of myself. I think you lack trust in your own intelligence and the intelligence of others.
you mean, of course, rustle women and rape cattle as in Blazing Saddles. Actually I have little trust in myself over some issues, great trust over what I can do in others - so I'm something of a contradiction there. But this isn't my point about having to project onto an imaginary god. Rather, the terminology of godness is itself a language by which to speak about another issue; namely, intelligence itself. Our "gods" are all manifestations of human experience. YHWH is no different.
This is over-analyzing simple terms. I am not saying that these are not issues, they are valid philosophies. But what is simply "suggestive" or "convincing" to you in your life is FINE to follow!
Thx 4 the comment, capoman1. Do you play guitar? (capo) I'm not sure what you mean here, though (my stupidity, not nec. your expression). What are valid philosophies? What is meant by suggestive or convincing? And what is meant by FINE to follow? Surely this does not mean that if some voice suggests to me to do horrendous things that's okay.
Well, maybe I was too presumptuous of your comments of what keeps us from doing harm to others. I thought that you were implying that religion or a belief in punishment or reward in afterlife is a true motivating factor for some people to behave "morally" (not harm others.) After your comments, I am not sure that this is what you were implying.
By "valid philosophies," I meant that these points you discuss as "what is belief" "what do we mean by REAL" "what is the REAL REAL" "the REALLY REAL..." and so on, are valid to argue; but are so strictly philosophical that they lead people away from the normal reality, aka daily life, and what can be seen through science, that almost ANY argument can become valid. But now that I have watched this video again, I think that I was reacting to what I thought I was hearing...
thx for that. An interesting and self-reflective comment there at the last. Such reaction happens to me frequently as well. The comment about "daily life" is true - most philosophers are like those men in Gulliver's Travel on the island of La Puta (the whore) who are so lost in the clouds they forget to eat, sleep or make love to their wives and have to be hit on the head by servants to remind them to return to said activities. On the other hand, to speculate on such things is life bread...
After all, if we don't think at all about where we are, what we are, where we are going, aren't we missing a large portion of the life of a rational creature? "The unexamined life is not worth living" as Plato says. Consequently, us gadflies pose such questions to stir the intellectual pot on the shoulders of anyone who will listen. What is science? And why does science have precedence over philosophy, theology, and myth? And does science answer all things? Love? Hate? Beauty? Epic fail?
I was reacting to what I was hearing, thinking that your arguments of "what is belief, etc" were akin to videos that I have seen recently by users like TogetherForPeace in videos like this: watch?v=ahhSBNmDlUI
In that video he asks "what is truth?" You might as well ask "what are facts?"
I am not so much a philosopher in strict terms. I have recently become interested in theology debates here on youtube.
But I have been turned off by strict philosophical arguments, because they usually just lead to naval gazing. And I haven't really took any philosophy courses, or read any books that you would consider "philosophy." But I may take interest in these someday.
But many of my arguments that have been challenged by philosophers here on youtube just led me down constant alleys of questions; which I realize is what philosophy is. But did not lead to USEFUL conclusions, only more vague pondering.
So much so that at the end of an argument, you could no longer distinguish what is "real" or if your imagination was "real!" I leave these things to those that are interested in this.
My stronger interest is in what is USEFUL or applicable in real life. And my concerns wits theology and existence of a god, come from what I have seen as flawed and dangerous thinking coming religious groups.
DUDE! All philosophy begins in wonder! and as an artist you intuitively realize that wonder begins with beauty! The AHA moment! (sorry, excited here) If you don't like philosophical mumbo jumbo - and I don't myself - read Joseph Campbell "The Power of Myth" or see the Bill Moyers series on the same. Artwork and images grant us the tangible forms we can wrap our minds around. philosophy is far too ethereal and offputting & No one was ever really persuaded by philosophy alone, IMO.
I have noticed MAJOR flaws in certain points from political leaders and their followers, and have seen a SERIOUS lack of curiosity and inquiry coming from their part, because they are already so satisfied with their current understandings and the METHOD of thinking that has been instilled in them along with it.
So things like carbon dating, the nature of fossils, the resemblances of dna in some species, and red phase shift, are easily discarded and discredited by these people.
But another reason that I don't like strict philosophical arguments is because they question the nature of somewhat trivial concepts, aka naval gazing.
When those strict philosophical arguments are drawn out, SIMPLE realities can be skewed. Things that were before PLAINLY OBVIOUS, then would become seriously questionable. And to me, that can be dangerous for some, because almost ANY line of thinking can be justified with enough QUESTIONS.
Yeah, that's what the ancients called "sophism" questioning not to find out but to make money and look important. Things don't really change much over time. The lack of curiosity thing kills me! I see, like Hopkins, that "the world is charged with the grandeur of God / it shines forth like shimmering from shook foil." Or like Simone Weil suggested, the very heart of the spiritual life is inquiry - philosophic or scientific or literary. W/o that curiosity, that wonder, what is the point...
I must contend with your last thought in there about the "the rule of the strong" being somehow the result of a godless state. Church history is at odds with this because it exemplifies the rule of the strong. I often ask the same question that I think you are getting at: forget whether or not god exists, what is the right course for society and does belief in God improve human behavior (through fear and promises)?
Thx for this too. I don't think that the rule of the strong results from a godless state as much as it is the baseline of human nature - even the dominance and oppression apparent in the Church (and history thereof) may not be due to the Church but due to the individuals w/in the Church who see the opportunity to exercise their power over others. The same is seen in every other religion and non-religious society. This leads me to believe it is humanly generated, not religiously.
Indeed, responder12345, the question does seem to be "what is the right course for society?" or to paraphrase Socrates "it is a question of how are we to live". In this there is no guarantee that belief in God will improve a person, nor that disbelief will wreck a person. But religion can offer the opportunity to mollify our tendency to vice and can provide a language to discuss human existence (as we are doing now) even if one doesn't fully understand or believe the language.
Finally, it may be semantics, but I must make the distinction between knowledge and belief (a distinction reaching as far back as the Greeks and the Medievals). What do we believe? What do we know? Are the two at odds? Is belief always reliant on knowledge? Or does it frame and shape knowledge? Does belief offer the opportunity to give creedence to an ideal maugre our knowledge? Can belief advance our knowledge? And must even belief be altered or abandoned at some point? and found again?
I agree that religion can assist with vice, however, while many may be drawn to religion because they have a desire to believe in an afterlife or a higher being, many others are compelled to believe in these things by others through manipulation and other devious means. In this way, religion is a way to gain power over others, create alienation, bigotry, territoriality, xenophobia, fear of knowledge, control, anger, and ignorance.
Rational humans follow rules of laws that are governed by ones perception of the consequences one one's actions. People follow the rules of the church in the same way and there is evidence that the laws of the church can change to reflect societal norms. We certainly do not accept slavery now, nor do we conduct public stonings, etc, however we interpret the bible based on society's current notions of abortion, capital punishment, etc, and yet even these ideas vary by geography.
Our concept of real is based only on that which can be sensed by the human body. If what enters the senses is somehow corrupted, or the processing of that information which is brought together in the mind is somehow not accurate, and one considers that any evidence that requires human processing is possibly incorrect, then one cannot trust anything to really be real :)
thx so much for your comment, responder12345, I do appreciate the level of honest engagement. Of course, if nothing can be trusted to be really real then your comment makes no sense at all and is rendered negligible. At some point a level of trust, even of empirical evidence, must exist if we are to function in the world at all. That is my main point here.
So you are telling me that without an imaginary god, you would "steal wives, and rape cattle?" I tend to think more highly of myself. I think you lack trust in your own intelligence and the intelligence of others.
capoman1 2 years ago
you mean, of course, rustle women and rape cattle as in Blazing Saddles. Actually I have little trust in myself over some issues, great trust over what I can do in others - so I'm something of a contradiction there. But this isn't my point about having to project onto an imaginary god. Rather, the terminology of godness is itself a language by which to speak about another issue; namely, intelligence itself. Our "gods" are all manifestations of human experience. YHWH is no different.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
This is over-analyzing simple terms. I am not saying that these are not issues, they are valid philosophies. But what is simply "suggestive" or "convincing" to you in your life is FINE to follow!
capoman1 2 years ago
Thx 4 the comment, capoman1. Do you play guitar? (capo) I'm not sure what you mean here, though (my stupidity, not nec. your expression). What are valid philosophies? What is meant by suggestive or convincing? And what is meant by FINE to follow? Surely this does not mean that if some voice suggests to me to do horrendous things that's okay.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
Just checked your channel, capoman1, you do play guitar and well too. I like your vids. Especially the counting crows stuff.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
Thanks for the comments and compliments.
Well, maybe I was too presumptuous of your comments of what keeps us from doing harm to others. I thought that you were implying that religion or a belief in punishment or reward in afterlife is a true motivating factor for some people to behave "morally" (not harm others.) After your comments, I am not sure that this is what you were implying.
capoman1 2 years ago
By "valid philosophies," I meant that these points you discuss as "what is belief" "what do we mean by REAL" "what is the REAL REAL" "the REALLY REAL..." and so on, are valid to argue; but are so strictly philosophical that they lead people away from the normal reality, aka daily life, and what can be seen through science, that almost ANY argument can become valid. But now that I have watched this video again, I think that I was reacting to what I thought I was hearing...
capoman1 2 years ago
thx for that. An interesting and self-reflective comment there at the last. Such reaction happens to me frequently as well. The comment about "daily life" is true - most philosophers are like those men in Gulliver's Travel on the island of La Puta (the whore) who are so lost in the clouds they forget to eat, sleep or make love to their wives and have to be hit on the head by servants to remind them to return to said activities. On the other hand, to speculate on such things is life bread...
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
After all, if we don't think at all about where we are, what we are, where we are going, aren't we missing a large portion of the life of a rational creature? "The unexamined life is not worth living" as Plato says. Consequently, us gadflies pose such questions to stir the intellectual pot on the shoulders of anyone who will listen. What is science? And why does science have precedence over philosophy, theology, and myth? And does science answer all things? Love? Hate? Beauty? Epic fail?
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
Hope you don't mind my vid response to your Counting Crows video.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
I was reacting to what I was hearing, thinking that your arguments of "what is belief, etc" were akin to videos that I have seen recently by users like TogetherForPeace in videos like this: watch?v=ahhSBNmDlUI
In that video he asks "what is truth?" You might as well ask "what are facts?"
I am not so much a philosopher in strict terms. I have recently become interested in theology debates here on youtube.
capoman1 2 years ago
But I have been turned off by strict philosophical arguments, because they usually just lead to naval gazing. And I haven't really took any philosophy courses, or read any books that you would consider "philosophy." But I may take interest in these someday.
But many of my arguments that have been challenged by philosophers here on youtube just led me down constant alleys of questions; which I realize is what philosophy is. But did not lead to USEFUL conclusions, only more vague pondering.
capoman1 2 years ago
So much so that at the end of an argument, you could no longer distinguish what is "real" or if your imagination was "real!" I leave these things to those that are interested in this.
My stronger interest is in what is USEFUL or applicable in real life. And my concerns wits theology and existence of a god, come from what I have seen as flawed and dangerous thinking coming religious groups.
capoman1 2 years ago
DUDE! All philosophy begins in wonder! and as an artist you intuitively realize that wonder begins with beauty! The AHA moment! (sorry, excited here) If you don't like philosophical mumbo jumbo - and I don't myself - read Joseph Campbell "The Power of Myth" or see the Bill Moyers series on the same. Artwork and images grant us the tangible forms we can wrap our minds around. philosophy is far too ethereal and offputting & No one was ever really persuaded by philosophy alone, IMO.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
I have noticed MAJOR flaws in certain points from political leaders and their followers, and have seen a SERIOUS lack of curiosity and inquiry coming from their part, because they are already so satisfied with their current understandings and the METHOD of thinking that has been instilled in them along with it.
So things like carbon dating, the nature of fossils, the resemblances of dna in some species, and red phase shift, are easily discarded and discredited by these people.
capoman1 2 years ago
But another reason that I don't like strict philosophical arguments is because they question the nature of somewhat trivial concepts, aka naval gazing.
When those strict philosophical arguments are drawn out, SIMPLE realities can be skewed. Things that were before PLAINLY OBVIOUS, then would become seriously questionable. And to me, that can be dangerous for some, because almost ANY line of thinking can be justified with enough QUESTIONS.
capoman1 2 years ago
Yeah, that's what the ancients called "sophism" questioning not to find out but to make money and look important. Things don't really change much over time. The lack of curiosity thing kills me! I see, like Hopkins, that "the world is charged with the grandeur of God / it shines forth like shimmering from shook foil." Or like Simone Weil suggested, the very heart of the spiritual life is inquiry - philosophic or scientific or literary. W/o that curiosity, that wonder, what is the point...
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
Except, of course, the acquisition and maintenance of POWER! and that's exactly what we see in modern politics (and in a great many places, religion)
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
"...may not be due to the Church but due to the individuals w/in the Church..."
matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
responder12345 2 years ago
I must contend with your last thought in there about the "the rule of the strong" being somehow the result of a godless state. Church history is at odds with this because it exemplifies the rule of the strong. I often ask the same question that I think you are getting at: forget whether or not god exists, what is the right course for society and does belief in God improve human behavior (through fear and promises)?
responder12345 2 years ago
Thx for this too. I don't think that the rule of the strong results from a godless state as much as it is the baseline of human nature - even the dominance and oppression apparent in the Church (and history thereof) may not be due to the Church but due to the individuals w/in the Church who see the opportunity to exercise their power over others. The same is seen in every other religion and non-religious society. This leads me to believe it is humanly generated, not religiously.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
Indeed, responder12345, the question does seem to be "what is the right course for society?" or to paraphrase Socrates "it is a question of how are we to live". In this there is no guarantee that belief in God will improve a person, nor that disbelief will wreck a person. But religion can offer the opportunity to mollify our tendency to vice and can provide a language to discuss human existence (as we are doing now) even if one doesn't fully understand or believe the language.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
Finally, it may be semantics, but I must make the distinction between knowledge and belief (a distinction reaching as far back as the Greeks and the Medievals). What do we believe? What do we know? Are the two at odds? Is belief always reliant on knowledge? Or does it frame and shape knowledge? Does belief offer the opportunity to give creedence to an ideal maugre our knowledge? Can belief advance our knowledge? And must even belief be altered or abandoned at some point? and found again?
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago
I like questions like that too. Cheers ABC-Darius-Rex!
responder12345 2 years ago
I agree that religion can assist with vice, however, while many may be drawn to religion because they have a desire to believe in an afterlife or a higher being, many others are compelled to believe in these things by others through manipulation and other devious means. In this way, religion is a way to gain power over others, create alienation, bigotry, territoriality, xenophobia, fear of knowledge, control, anger, and ignorance.
responder12345 2 years ago
Rational humans follow rules of laws that are governed by ones perception of the consequences one one's actions. People follow the rules of the church in the same way and there is evidence that the laws of the church can change to reflect societal norms. We certainly do not accept slavery now, nor do we conduct public stonings, etc, however we interpret the bible based on society's current notions of abortion, capital punishment, etc, and yet even these ideas vary by geography.
responder12345 2 years ago
Our concept of real is based only on that which can be sensed by the human body. If what enters the senses is somehow corrupted, or the processing of that information which is brought together in the mind is somehow not accurate, and one considers that any evidence that requires human processing is possibly incorrect, then one cannot trust anything to really be real :)
responder12345 2 years ago
thx so much for your comment, responder12345, I do appreciate the level of honest engagement. Of course, if nothing can be trusted to be really real then your comment makes no sense at all and is rendered negligible. At some point a level of trust, even of empirical evidence, must exist if we are to function in the world at all. That is my main point here.
AbecedariusRex 2 years ago