Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[o2b]

I’m pretty sure this is more a fight about miscommunicated words more than anything.
I don’t disagree with anything you said.
I’m saying the body in both subjective and objective ways, though, objectively I would suggest it to not be used in such a way. Hahaha
But I do definitely think that looking at the body is a singular and collective experience as well. Sorry if we miscommunicated.

Heck, it's OK. Yes, I definitely misunderstood what you wrote, especially that one part I quoted, took real literally, and said I could not believe that!

Wish you'd have read my thingie on the blood, but it is quite long.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Another interesting topic comes to mind, which would be fun to discuss. It can be put forward as a question: is the self an illusion?

I guess there is a lot of New Agey thinking that goes in that direction, but I re-encountered the topic in connection with a podcast on Buddhism. To be honest, I'm not sure I've come across a convincing argument to the effect that the self/ego is an illusion that can be dissolved. But would love to hear people's thoughts.

As an aside, I'm not very impressed with the philosophy of Buddhism so far. It sounds kind of naive.

I have some thoughts on it, but apparently not as well.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Wish you'd have read my thingie on the blood, but it is quite long.

I’ll have to revisit the end of it, I got so caught up in trying to help you figure out the logical fallacy, I think we both found it.
I try not to teach or talk about theology unless it’s in church and with a pastor and it was extremely difficult for me to do that and give you physical evidence or psychological ones, so I understand if it all sounds like mush while I’m working my own theoretical kinks. Thanks for being patient with me.
I think I got the blood part without reading for sure. <3

 

[Ren]

Perhaps there's a difference between knowing what is good and understanding it? I think man very well, knows the difference between good and evil, but doesn't and cannot have the full grasp understanding of it due to our inability to know everything and be God himself.

Interestingly, Socrates taught (roughly) that immorality arises only from ignorance.

This is an argument that churchmen have repurposed from time to time in trying to come to grips with the existence of evil.

I don't buy it, but it's interesting to see a moral problem being recast into a near-epistemological one (i.e. impossibility to gain full knowledge of the good/God).

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Interestingly, Socrates taught (roughly) that immorality arises only from ignorance.

This is an argument that churchmen have repurposed from time to time in trying to come to grips with the existence of evil.

I don't buy it, but it's interesting to see a moral problem being recast into a near-epistemological one (i.e. impossibility to gain full knowledge of the good/God).

Which dialogue is that? Sounds somewhat contradictory to what he adumbrates in Meno, where he argues that virtue (as good) is not something which can be taught (as implied by the father/son disparity in his conversation with Anytus; i.e. if virtue is knowledge, knowledge is good, and good brings us prosperity, there should be no reason for the fathers not to impart these virtues to their sons. Yet the sons had not been as illustrious or respected.)

In the end he compares it to something intuitive, like a divine revelation which guides us but only appears to us contextually (true opinion) and is not something we can recollect at will (knowledge).

 

[Ren]

Which dialogue is that? Sounds somewhat contradictory to what he adumbrates in Meno, where he argues that virtue (as good) is not something which can be taught (as implied by the father/son disparity in his conversation with Anytus; i.e. if virtue is knowledge, knowledge is good, and good brings us prosperity, there should be no reason for the fathers not to impart these virtues to their sons. Yet the sons had not been as illustrious or respected.)

In the end he compares it to something intuitive, like a divine revelation which guides us but only appears to us contextually (true opinion) and is not something we can recollect at will (knowledge).

Protagoras. (One of the best and most fun dialogues in my opinion)

"No intelligent man believes that anybody ever willingly errs or willingly does base and evil deeds; they are well aware that all who do base and evil things to them unwillingly."

Sometimes willingly is replaced with knowingly. Which emphasises the idea of ignorance.

See also this article.

Which dialogue is that? Sounds somewhat contradictory to what he adumbrates in Meno, where he argues that virtue (as good) is not something which can be taught (as implied by the father/son disparity in his conversation with Anytus; i.e. if virtue is knowledge, knowledge is good, and good brings us prosperity, there should be no reason for the fathers not to impart these virtues to their sons. Yet the sons had not been as illustrious or respected.)

But you can teach that the good cannot be taught, while also teaching that evil arises from ignorance.

That is, you can teach people about an ailment without the teaching itself being the remedy.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

"No intelligent man believes that anybody ever willingly errs or willingly does base and evil deeds; they are well aware that all who do base and evil things to them unwillingly."

Sometimes willingly is replaced with knowingly. Which emphasises the idea of ignorance.

Ah, well that's more in line with what I was thinking.

SOCRATES: There are some who desire evil?
MENO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Do you mean that they think the evils which they desire, to be good; or do they know that they are evil and yet desire them?
MENO: Both, I think.
SOCRATES: And do you really imagine, Meno, that a man knows evils to be evils and desires them notwithstanding?
MENO: Certainly I do.
SOCRATES: And desire is of possession?
MENO: Yes, of possession.
SOCRATES: And does he think that the evils will do good to him who possesses them, or does he know that they will do him harm?
MENO: There are some who think that the evils will do them good, and others who know that they will do them harm.
SOCRATES: And, in your opinion, do those who think that they will do them good know that they are evils?
MENO: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: Is it not obvious that those who are ignorant of their nature do not desire them; but they desire what they suppose to be goods although they are really evils; and if they are mistaken and suppose the evils to be goods they really desire goods?

 

[o2b]

I’ll have to revisit the end of it, I got so caught up in trying to help you figure out the logical fallacy, I think we both found it.
I try not to teach or talk about theology unless it’s in church and with a pastor and it was extremely difficult for me to do that and give you physical evidence or psychological ones, so I understand if it all sounds like mush while I’m working my own theoretical kinks. Thanks for being patient with me.
I think I got the blood part without reading for sure. <3

About 80% of the theology I share, I got from no one else. I want to believe God gave it to me, anyway.

The blood thing is long because I felt it needed support of concepts that essentially have no place in Christendom, one being a vastly character transformed people at the "end of time."

Anyway, I'll just succinctly tell you what I believe Christ's blood is.

It is the revelation of all the painful feelings one can possibly feel as a natural consequence of perceiving one's own immorality, this perception being an inevitable occurrence in the process of rapid transformation. It is also the revelation of His victory within that experience.

The remnant will undergo an expansion in their consciousness and will perceive Christ in the realm of feeling.

Our perception of Christ's grace is extremely partial because it is confined to the realm of reason. Sure, we feel. But we do not perceive what He felt.

That's why I started with the male (reason) and female (feeling) thing. The power lies when the two are one.

So it will be. And that power will be well able to fully transform character.

Christ's blood is a detox agent, managing the release of toxins (painful feelings) that accompany transformation.

 

[Ren]

Ah, well that's more in line with what I was thinking.

I'd missed witnessing how stupid Socrates's interlocutor is always made to be in the dialogues : ' ) The worst being probably Gorgias.

There are a few exceptions, of course. Protagoras puts up a decent fight. Parmenides arguably dominates Socrates.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

I'd missed witnessing how stupid Socrates's interlocutor is always made to be in the dialogues : ' ) The worst being probably Gorgias.

There are a few exceptions, of course. Protagoras puts up a decent fight. Parmenides arguably dominates Socrates.

Maybe Socrates is Plato's alter ego which he devised when he was creating imaginary arguments in the baths where he needed his opponents to say exactly what he needs.

 

[Ren]

Maybe Socrates is Plato's alter ego which he devised when he was creating imaginary arguments in the baths where he needed his opponents to say exactly what he needs.

lol. There is little doubt that the Socrates of the dialogues is the Platonic Socrates, not Socrates himself.

In fact, towards the later dialogues Socrates begins to look more and more like Plato himself. I'm thinking of dialogues like Theatetus and Sophist.

The Symposium is funny. Pretty sure one of the interlocutors, a famous person (can't remember which one--Aristophanes maybe?) doesn't say a word throughout the entire conversation because he's got hiccups.

 

[o2b]

About 80% of the theology I share, I got from no one else. I want to believe God gave it to me, anyway.

The blood thing is long because I felt it needed support of concepts that essentially have no place in Christendom, one being a vastly character transformed people at the "end of time."

Anyway, I'll just succinctly tell you what I believe Christ's blood is.

It is the revelation of all the painful feelings one can possibly feel as a natural consequence of perceiving one's own immorality, this perception being an inevitable occurrence in the process of rapid transformation. It is also the revelation of His victory within that experience.

The remnant will undergo an expansion in their consciousness and will perceive Christ in the realm of feeling.

Our perception of Christ's grace is extremely partial because it is confined to the realm of reason. Sure, we feel. But we do not perceive what He felt.

That's why I started with the male (reason) and female (feeling) thing. The power lies when the two are one.

So it will be. And that power will be well able to fully transform character.

Christ's blood is a detox agent, managing the release of toxins (painful feelings) that accompany transformation.

Given that my blog entry on this subject was so long, I badly want to briefly mention something here. (It was covered in the entry at the end.)

Why don't we yet perceive in the realm of feeling?

To use metaphor, because Elijah, the greatest of prophets, must come first.

Prophesy stands for the reason component of grace. Elijah is the greatest of prophets meaning it is a metaphor for a necessary, preparatory level of reason.

The feeling realm is just so explosive. Unless the threshold that is Elijah is met, perception in the feeling realm would lead to misinterpretations that would be lethal.

This explains our long season of moral futility and also what can be done to end this painful existence. Advance understanding. Get Elijah over here!

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Interestingly, Socrates taught (roughly) that immorality arises only from ignorance.

This is an argument that churchmen have repurposed from time to time in trying to come to grips with the existence of evil.

Depends on where it’s directed I’m sure.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

In the end he compares it to something intuitive, like a divine revelation which guides us but only appears to us contextually (true opinion) and is not something we can recollect at will (knowledge).

People pick and choose what to believe.

 

[Ren]

Why don't we yet perceive in the realm of feeling?

To use metaphor, because Elijah, the greatest of prophets, must come first.

I think that if you want your argument to have more force with your audience, you need to clarify what you mean a little bit.

Your premise: we don't yet perceive in the realm of feeling. How is that the case? Perception of emotional states is one of the most basic forms of self-knowledge.

Your conclusion: Elijah must come first. The problem is that you are assuming the truth of your conclusion in advance. I understand this is a form of special pleading, but it isn't a philosophical argument.

It's also not clear to me that moral clarity would result from e.g. perfect perception of feeling (assuming the coming of Elijah). Isn't morality the domain of reason rather than feeling?

 

[Ren]

Depends on where it’s directed I’m sure.

I'm not sure what you mean, Exhumed-chan

 

[Ren]

People pick and choose what to believe.

Aren't most of our beliefs unconscious, though?

 

[Anomaly]

Aren't most of our beliefs unconscious, though?

Yes, until they are brought into consciousness either by self-analysis, witnessing those 'beliefs'/values in others, or by those beliefs or values being held in violation which leads to a gut/visceral reaction. Thus, leading to a conscious awareness that there are beliefs which exist that we weren't aware of, things which we value that existed outside of our periphery. I see this occur often in moral dilemmas.

 

[Wyote]

I see this occur often in moral dilemmas.

Yup

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

People pick and choose what to believe.

I don't think it's that simple. The acceptance of a new belief is necessarily influenced by the totality of all previous beliefs relevant to your specific context in some kind of heuristic matrix, which guides you to see some things as more plausible than others. Everyone individually is the final arbiter of what constitutes evidence, but this process is not entirely in our control.