Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We live in different very intellectual spheres and I find yours philosophically vacuous . . . we can agree to disagree.
We can agree to disagree if the conversation were conducted in a respectful and cordial manner, something that you have never been able to accomplish with any member of this forum to date. As for intellectual spheres, my is grounded in the history, anthropology and political economy, while yours, by your own previous admissions is based upon self starvation, reduced oxygen flow to the brain, apparitions and hallucinations.
Quote:
Your pragmatism and realism coupled with your rejection of the relevance of any purpose for humans to even exist reveals your lack of comprehension of the deeper issues involved in the concept of morality itself.
My pragmatism and realism is based upon biology! Morality is both an offspring of that biology, sociology and economics. You exist for no more reason that your mother and father chose have sex and produce an offspring, you, although I doubt that their purpose was to raise an obtuse, and pompous... (fill in the blank). As for finding one's purpose for existence well that is a personal journey that we all have to undertake. Some of us find that purpose is to create great wealth, for some it is to create art, for some... they never find out and for folks like yourself who can't figure it out on their own, it is making up some mythical power/spirit/deity which I suppose is easier and certainly more efficient.
Quote:
absent a purpose to human existence it is all irrelevant and pointless.
So says you, and for that you have my greatest sympathy.
Quote:
My life is not driven by anything so pointless and capricious. God exists and establishes the purpose of life itself and ours in particular. I seek to ascertain what it is and make my life consistent with its purpose.
Well god may be guiding your search, but I figured mine out more than 30 years ago without mythical powers/spirits/ or deities acting as my guidance counselor. Morality simply set the parameters, which is why I have never, purposefully cut anyone off in traffic, jumped ahead in line, cheated on my wife, betrayed an oath, cheated anyone out of money, been arrested, or committed a major crime, smoking pot, a brief fling with Peruvian marching powder and an occasional bar fight excepted.
We can agree to disagree if the conversation were conducted in a respectful and cordial manner, something that you have never been able to accomplish with any member of this forum to date. As for intellectual spheres, my is grounded in the history, anthropology and political economy, while yours, by your own previous admissions is based upon self starvation, reduced oxygen flow to the brain, apparitions and hallucinations.
No wonder you disagree with me. Sad, very sad.
Quote:
My pragmatism and realism is based upon biology! Morality is both an offspring of that biology, sociology and economics. You exist for no more reason that your mother and father chose have sex and produce an offspring, you, although I doubt that their purpose was to raise an obtuse, and pompous... (fill in the blank).
Obtuse and pompous . . . you say . . . Hmmm a big fan of irony are you??
Quote:
As for finding one's purpose for existence well that is a personal journey that we all have to undertake. Some of us find that purpose is to create great wealth, for some it is to create art, for some... they never find out and for folks like yourself who can't figure it out on their own, it is making up some mythical power/spirit/deity which I suppose is easier and certainly more efficient.
Well god may be guiding your search, but I figured mine out more than 30 years ago without mythical powers/spirits/ or deities acting as my guidance counselor.
Are you sure about that?
Quote:
Morality simply set the parameters, which is why I have never, purposefully cut anyone off in traffic, jumped ahead in line, cheated on my wife, betrayed an oath, cheated anyone out of money, been arrested, or committed a major crime, smoking pot, a brief fling with Peruvian marching powder and an occasional bar fight excepted.
That looks remarkably similar to the morality God led me to . . . Hmmmm . . . I would rethink that guidance bit in bold if I were you.
Which is exactly what I asked you. As usual, you employ deflection. Asking a question is a form of gaining information. You reject any attempt to answer and refuse to provide your own answers for discussion.
Way to go promoting your religious views. No answers at all .
It's getting increasingly difficult for me to avoid making an ad hominem remark.
As I already pointed out, I answered my own question. I'm trying to answer your questions by first having you answer your own questions. I'm not placing any expectation on you that I'm unwilling to place upon myself.
As stated, if you're unable or unwilling to answer your own question, well, that's your problem. I won't be losing any sleep over it.
The only way a person can be immoral or abandon right course, is to abandon God. It boggles my mind at how many ways people come up with to get God out of the picture.
I think its because, people have this instinct that they are being watched. Running away will do you no good. You are graciously caught at the moment of conception. Funny how before adolescence, theres no issue.
Anyway more to the point, the sad news is that the proportion of people who want to live in a hole like an animal hiding from things, will reflect itself in perfect proportion in quality of life of the society which is clearly in dismay. Society gets what it deserves, good ole pruning in collective unhappiness. its not the money..economy folks... its your freaky heads. I don't like to leave things without hope, so heres a helpful remedy. Instead of watching crap on TV...watch a movie from 1932-1938. These people are in worse economic ect shape and show spirit in hope.
Seems theres a little more toughness in character. Sorry but all I see are wimpy opinions...save an always refreshing few.
Contemporary theater is dragging the sheep into the gutter . Looking at this thread ...theres no question about it. You think your going forward...NO WAY CHARLIE
Last edited by ClearNight; 12-07-2010 at 06:53 AM..
It's getting increasingly difficult for me to avoid making an ad hominem remark.
As I already pointed out, I answered my own question. I'm trying to answer your questions by first having you answer your own questions. I'm not placing any expectation on you that I'm unwilling to place upon myself.
As stated, if you're unable or unwilling to answer your own question, well, that's your problem. I won't be losing any sleep over it.
The only way you have "answered" your own question is by asking others to answer it. If, as you imply, you already have your answer why did you ask the question? Can you say troll?
. . . answer this for me without recourse to them (your euphemisms): WHAT THE HELL IS DOING THE PRIMORDIAL SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCING, Gaylenwoof????
Quick answer: Nothing, as in "no-thing" - or more specifically no fundamentally intelligent "thinking thing", no "primordial consciousness." There is no need to hypothesize a determinate being "behind the scenes" that "does" the experiencing. There is just qualitative Reality, or the "World Itself" which might, in fact, be intelligent in some high-level sense, but if it is intelligent, this intelligence is an achievement, not a foundational condition.
From "I think" the minimum logical implication is "thought exists." The concept of an "I" who exists as some sort of pure "thinking substance" apart from the thought (a "being" who "does the thinking") is an additional concept added on via an inductive leap. The "I" need not exist, and if it does exist, it does not need to be ontologically fundamental. My own view is that the "I" does exist, but only as a higher-level pattern of experience. (Patterns of "that which we know to be the minimum logical ontological stuff.")
The World Itself just is experiential, and thus it might be somewhat acceptable to say that it is "the World Itself" that is the "experiencer" in the case of each and every experience (I do, in fact, often talk this way myself), but this is still potentially misleading insofar as the "World" is not any sort of determinate substance or "consciousness" independent of the qualitative aspects of Reality.
Mystic: You've had some sort of insight (Intuitive? Mystical? Divine?) and I respect that. But having an insight is one thing; interpreting this insight in terms of science and philosophy is something else. I've had my own insights via meditation, in addition to 3 decades of studying various sciences and philosophies. My own insights have brought me to something I can only compare to Buddhist "no-self" or "Nothingness." This sort of thing is notoriously difficult to put into words – especially in the context of rational thought – but all things considered, I think it is ultimately more philosophically and scientifically plausible than theism (for reasons I've tried to explain in other threads).
From my perspective, it seems that you hide behind the word "euphemism" as a way of summarily dismissing (and perhaps avoiding or repressing) insights that you have so far failed to attain. You are so mired in the dualistic mindset of mind/body, God/world that you cannot understand that a "self-organizing" system does not require a "self" to "do" the organizing. Of course it requires a "medium" – some intrinsically dynamic "stuff" capable of exhibiting patterns, but it does not require any behind-the-scenes Intelligence who "designs" the patterns or "organizes the stuff" in accordance with some plan.
This is why I say it is a vacuous concept. The dominant (individual, group, or groups) decide. We might more realistically call it MY RULES or OUR RULES . . . rather than implying there is some ultimate truth upon which it should be based. The reality is that . . . IF we are a purposeless component of reality . . . there is no ultimate standard that makes healing "better" than murder. . . regardless what we might think about it.
Assuming that God exists, wouldn't God have to be an existentialist? God did not choose to exist, and God did not choose its own nature. God just is, and God's nature just is what it is. God cannot turn to a higher power for guidance or a sense of purpose. God, as all-knowing, would certainly know this, and thus God would have to be an existentialist.
The concept of God does not dispel the foundational absurdity of Existence; all it does is give us an excuse to pass the buck and let God deal with it. My choice is to embrace the ultimate Mystery/Absurdity and take my leap of faith into the arms of "love" and "reason." You might say that this is an arbitrary leap, and I might agree, but it is no more arbitrary than your leap of faith toward what you call God, and the commandments that have supposedly been passed down from God.
The main difference is that I am not passing the buck to God. I acknowledge that grey areas exist, and that learning/exploration will be required because I don't have a tidy little holy book to dictate morality for me. This does not mean the my life is without meaning or purpose; it just means that meaning and purpose are not handed to me an on silver platter.
This also does not mean that there is no objective basis for morality. Your concept of God is not required in order for us to say that we have an essential shared nature (what I would call the ultimate Unity or Oneness of Being), and this foundational Unity can provide the conceptual basis for thinking about objective morality, just as well as (I'd say better than) your concept of God.
Quick answer: Nothing, as in "no-thing" - or more specifically no fundamentally intelligent "thinking thing", no "primordial consciousness." There is no need to hypothesize a determinate being "behind the scenes" that "does" the experiencing. There is just qualitative Reality, or the "World Itself" which might, in fact, be intelligent in some high-level sense, but if it is intelligent, this intelligence is an achievement, not a foundational condition.
This is the epitome of self-deceptive reasoning. What in reality do you use as a proof of concept for this "no thing experiencer?' The ONLY "things" we know of that genuinely "experience" are consciousnesses.
Quote:
From "I think" the minimum logical implication is "thought exists." The concept of an "I" who exists as some sort of pure "thinking substance" apart from the thought (a "being" who "does the thinking") is an additional concept added on via an inductive leap. The "I" need not exist, and if it does exist, it does not need to be ontologically fundamental. My own view is that the "I" does exist, but only as a higher-level pattern of experience. (Patterns of "that which we know to be the minimum logical ontological stuff.")
The World Itself just is experiential, and thus it might be somewhat acceptable to say that it is "the World Itself" that is the "experiencer" in the case of each and every experience (I do, in fact, often talk this way myself), but this is still potentially misleading insofar as the "World" is not any sort of determinate substance or "consciousness" independent of the qualitative aspects of Reality.
Mystic: You've had some sort of insight (Intuitive? Mystical? Divine?) and I respect that. But having an insight is one thing; interpreting this insight in terms of science and philosophy is something else. I've had my own insights via meditation, in addition to 3 decades of studying various sciences and philosophies. My own insights have brought me to something I can only compare to Buddhist "no-self" or "Nothingness." This sort of thing is notoriously difficult to put into words – especially in the context of rational thought – but all things considered, I think it is ultimately more philosophically and scientifically plausible than theism (for reasons I've tried to explain in other threads).
Sorry Charlie . . . epic fail. You have not thought sufficiently about where this "I" exists phenomenologically. It cannot exist in any form of matter. You have bought into the illusion that Self is an illusion (no homunculus). But your Self and my Self are phenomenologically different forms of energy independently interacting with reality. ANYTHING that can independently react with reality can NOT be an illusion! You need to rethink your euphemistic obfuscation to reach a deeper level of understanding than you currently have reached.
Quote:
From my perspective, it seems that you hide behind the word "euphemism" as a way of summarily dismissing (and perhaps avoiding or repressing) insights that you have so far failed to attain. You are so mired in the dualistic mindset of mind/body, God/world that you cannot understand that a "self-organizing" system does not require a "self" to "do" the organizing. Of course it requires a "medium" – some intrinsically dynamic "stuff" capable of exhibiting patterns, but it does not require any behind-the-scenes Intelligence who "designs" the patterns or "organizes the stuff" in accordance with some plan.
When you can adequately explain the phenomenological "Self" (manifesting in an energy realm) that you dismiss so cavalierly using superficial Buddhist philosophy . . . then we will discuss who is mired in what mindset.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 12-07-2010 at 11:20 AM..
If morality is real then it must exist somewhere, if its not just held by individuals then it must be held externally. So the question comes as to where?
It's only "ral" to t5eh extent5 that it is adopted and utilized, mostly designed to fit teh social strictures of the day. Hence it was gloriously moral for Japanese soldiers to butcher the cowardly Americans (those who surrendered) during WWII. It was highly moral for Spanish priests to torture innocents during the SI. "W" Bush assured us it was God's purpose for his (and that other highly moral guy, Rumsfeldt....) commitment to go in and destroy Iraqi society.
It's also considered the height of self-appointed modern morality to yowl at funerals for military men (courtesy of The Westboro Abberationist Ministry). Need more examples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClearNight
The only way a person can be immoral or abandon right course, is to abandon God. It boggles my mind at how many ways people come up with to get God out of the picture.
WRONG. Completely WRONG. I've completely abandoned all wooden Gods, including your particular God, in my life, and in the process became a thoughtful,, peace-loving independent-thinking and, IMHO, highly moral individual.
I do not need some 12-step biblical guide book. "Do this, don't do that, and you're in!" Not hardly, ClearNight.
In fact, I take that as a sign of personal weakness, a distinct inability to consider alternate viewpoints, to look at the bigger picture rationally, and make personal decisions based on what is inherently right or wrong.
For instance, is it OK for BP in the Gulf to walk away early from the damages they caused to the environment? Seems EXXON feels that way about the Exxon Valdez, they having paid precious little out of pocket $$$ even now. Yet I'm going to bet that quite a few of Exxon's Texas hyper-execs perhaps even go to church with "W".
... the sad news is that the proportion of people who want to live in a hole like an animal hiding from things, will reflect itself in perfect proportion in quality of life of the society which is clearly in dismay. Society gets what it deserves,
I'd agree. Of course, being a non-believer is usually an indicator of actively NOT wanting to hide one's head in the sand, as so many practicing Christians do so fearfully. Nope: most atheists I know, those who actually consider and review their position, have become so because the prevalent non-think that attends organized religion wants folks to hide their heads in that sand. Personally, I find the resulting sand in my ears quite irritating!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB
People are either believers or non-believers.
Morality doesn't have anything to do with it.
Nicely said, GB. My own accumulated (and still accumulating @ 63 yrs of age) morality (be essentially good, kind to others and to animals, respectful if that's extended to you, and considerate of others less fortunate) allows me to go forward and be a positively functioning member of society absent any artificial claims to superiority and what's "right". I.e.: no paternizing, finger-waggling, down-my-nose dismissive attitude that's so often expressed in others with a political or philosophical/religious agenda. No claims that my achievements are solely the result of actions and "morals" guided by others.
I suspect the ongoing attempt to pigeon-hole atheists as immoral is just a silly immature ploy designed to irritate and inflame. Oh, and claim some moral high ground of course. Quite immoral on it's face, I'd have to conclude! The sort of thing that gets you into hell!
So... forget it! Won't work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Morality Play
