 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||
03-03-2008, 09:44 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| “but what I meant with "(voting?)" was that some churches vote as a group in elections and so on, not as induviduals which is the basis of democracy, that every induvidual should have as much power as the next one does.. When churches and maybe entire religions start voting as one, the induvidual part goes bye bye and the gang mentality is a fact...” (Wizzy) You have a quam with herd mentality. You can’t escape herd mentality unless you live your life in a box for twenty years on knowledge and information gained only by your own cognition. Herd mentality, to be fair, exists with the liberals and conservatives, the religious and the atheistic. Prescribing to a single established theory IS herd mentality. “And if they speak for the church or not is also irrelivent as they belive they speak for "god", that's my biggest issue that you can twist and turn most religions into what you want it to be, it's like justifying extreme oppinions and ideas..” (Wizzy) So you believe that Jehova’s witnesses are wrong because they believe they speak for God? That they can twist things to what they want it to be? This is like justifying extreme opinions and ideas? What if there exists a person that believes they speak for the anti-God? That they too could twist things to make them into what they want them to be? That indeed they try to justify extreme opinions and ideas. The position you occupy is at the opposite end of a see-saw, and religion is at the other. Both sides fall to the ground, but the part that is always elevated the middleground. Is this not hypocrisy? “not saying that it's limited to just religion in any way, but as it's not uncommon for people to fight over religion (the crusades, hitler vs. Jews, bush etc. etc.), not even saying that religion is the major reason but it's still a reason, so why give them reasons to rally the people around?” (Wizzy) Does this imply that we should have no reasons at all? “Well I find it hard to belive that people will ever worship Einstein's theory of relativity because he never tried to pass it as a infinitive moral code/law by a higher creature who is wiser then any man... Just as nobody have ever worshiped Sun Tzu's "The art of war" because that doesn't speak of how you should live and threaten with a neverending punishment in hell, just telling their theorys of war, warefare and tactics... That's philosophy, not trying to pass of your thoughts and ideas as truths handed to you by a bigger spirit” (wizzy) Sun Tzu does indeed show you how to live your life.. and quite successfully… It’s a matter of interpretation. What is life but war in a civil or non-civil sense. Sun Tzu also says that hell, our conception of it, is failure and defeat, hence we strive by way of strategy and tactics to defeat. Unfortunately, that is not philosophy, only an instruction book taken to be philosophy. “trying to pass your thoughts and ideas as truths handed to you by a bigger spirit” is the cornerstone of philosophy. Look at Descartes… father of modern philosophy… “I must doubt everything. Perhaps an evil deceiver deceives me. The fact that I am being deceived tells me that I exist, thus I am a thinking thing (res cogitans) because o the fact I am being deceived. “Well, don't belive it limits knowledge.. As you said we doubt anything and everything until there's some proof.. And as the whole theory of a higher power lacks any proof or reasonable logic as far as I know, doubting it and even despiseing that other people don't doubt it is just reasonable according to me,” (wizzy) Does atheism provide any definite proof that God does not exist. You can see how both sides do not possess the level of absolute certainty for a person to take sides with either one. “I thought the point of philosophy was discussing the knowledge that couldn't be solved in any other way and then to compare ideas and reasoning out the most logical answer “ (wizzy) Philosophy is in a sense the dumping ground of the sciences. Philosophy is the abstract reasonings that indeed cannot be fit into definite science. Once something does gain definite status, it ceases to be philosophy, and becomes science. Philosophy doesnt have to be logical… only abstract and solution oriented. “And ofcourse I know that I shouldn't have this hate, but I do.. Everytime I see some religious fanatic talking about politics, why schools should have morning prayer or even seeing one of those tv-preachers talk about how everybody who is religious are better people, my hate arises and the best outlet is to discuss why I hate it... Think that's better then to go out and destroying a church or something like that... don't you?” (wizzy) Hate is overrated… simply put… its too simple a response to an issue. Perhaps you interpret the message as the religious people being better, but that may not be the fact. It’s a difference of opinion. I agree with you, that it is better to discuss than to put hate to action. Hate of that sort does not belong in philosophy. It is unproductive. And people that do enforce hate by hurting others are much like rabid dogs, devoid of reason, should be dealt with accordingly as what is just within law. Wouldn’t you agree? Last edited by VideCorSpoon; 03-04-2008 at 12:44 AM.  |
|
03-04-2008, 01:48 PM
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Quote:
Well, I agree with you that "herd mentality" is everywhere but I wouldn't agree that everybody is a victim of it, since somebody have to be the person who leads the herd (the shepard if you wish)... If nobody was a sheep but a shepard, wouldn't the system work better? Wouldn't laws function to a further extent then they do? Wouldn't the world be a better place? Quote:
 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree that it doesn't belong in philosophy, haven't the hate for ignorance and not knowing made philosophy what it is? Hate is everywhere, and a huge part of what we are as a race, as humans and as a person... What we hate is a big part of what we are and who we are... Ofcourse, some kinds of hate is good, really good.. Even when you let hate take action.. If you see a girl beeing raped and you hate rapeists, you let your anger take controll of you and you knock out the rapeist, haven't you done a good deed? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"-Edmund Burke And also Spoon, I couldn't find Religon Reconsidered by Steven M. Cahn, although I googled it.. If you would know where to find it I would love to read it! la próxima vez, adios
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-04-2008, 03:30 PM
| |||||
| |||||
|
How does a Sheppard come to be a Sheppard but by following the example of a Sheppard. They learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone… unless you believe in pre-cognition. “I'm not trying to make people athiests, not even saying that they should be, just saying that they have to doubt the exsistance of a god until somebody can even come close to proving that there's one, or in your example, go up on the middle ground” (wizzy) Well reasoned and well founded logic. You have come to the beginning of modern philosophy. You stand at the same point that Descartes stood at hundreds of years ago. “We wouldn't remove every reason people fight just because we would remove religion, I'm not that naive... But if you think about it, really think about it, what made it possible for Hitler to take power over germany? wasn't it the hate they had for jews? Wouldn't religion be a good thing to remove if it would even slightly limit the possibility for a new hitler to come around?” (wizzy) What made it possible for Hitler to take power was this. After World War One, the economic structure of Germany collapsed under the recall of foreign debt and wartime restitution. This left the deutschemark over inflated, where a barral of dollars per se could not even buy a loaf of bread. When people become hungry for example, they lose their rational faculties and become angry. “who do I blame… why do I go hungry?” say the german people. “The jews… they did this to you… it is they who hold the smoking gun” say Hitler. Half of Germany disagree because they think that this is of course nonsense, the other half of the people are so delirious with hunger and hate and angst that they will believe the sweet promise of Hitler (aka mephisto) to put them on the right road again. Those delirious half of the population become infused with empty pride and false hope, and force their ideas on the other rational half. Many die, many convert for fear of being killed, thus Hitler comes to power. By this rationale, it is hate and radical politicalism that we should remove, not religion. “You might be right about that he (sun tzu) shows you how to lead your life but nobody have yet to taken his words as laws set up by a higher power because he never claims that they are... And yes ofcourse, alot of philosophers have tried to explain what thoughts come from and as descartes said, suggested the possibility that they are controlled by a higher spirit, of course, the opposit is just as common...” (wizzy) The samurai did. And you are right, the other side of the spectrum is indeed just as common. “Ofcourse no side "possess the level absolute certainty" which is why it's philosophy, isn't it? But you said it once again: you have to doubt that there is a higher spirit until some proof can be shown, ofcourse you also should doubt that there isn't one.. So you should doubt that there isn't unicorns and santa too... Which should place you on that middle ground you where talking about, shouldn't it?” (wizzy) Doubt isn’t exactly my forte. What is my forte is that there exists something, whether it be god, or existence, or atoms, or ether, or whatever that is… just as we are. There is no nonexistence at this point (arguably), so the best possible evidence suggests that we are… thinking things. We move on from there. “Maybe not the most logical but the most probable... Cause if you don't use the most probable, then you haven't come to any conclusion have you?”(wizzy) Philosophy should be deductive, not inductive. If you come to a wrong conclusion alone, it is still a wrong conclusion. “I don't agree that it doesn't belong in philosophy, haven't the hate for ignorance and not knowing made philosophy what it is?”(wizzy) Nope, it’s the embracement of ignorance as a core metaphysical concept. “Hate is everywhere, and a huge part of what we are as a race, as humans and as a person... What we hate is a big part of what we are and who we are... Ofcourse, some kinds of hate is good, really good.. Even when you let hate take action.. If you see a girl beeing raped and you hate rapeists, you let your anger take controll of you and you knock out the rapeist, haven't you done a good deed? You don’t let hate drive you to save the woman… you let morality, and the need to protect the weaker sex… (although it is sexist to say) Hate drives the rapist to rape the woman in the first place. It is the necessity to combat hate that saves the woman. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"-Edmund Burke” Inaction is a horrible thing. Neville Chamberlin declared peace in our time by declaring peace with Hitler, which didn’t turn out so good for a lot of people. And also Spoon, I couldn't find Religon Reconsidered by Steven M. Cahn, although I googled it.. If you would know where to find it I would love to read it! I’ll scan the chapter for you! |
|
03-04-2008, 04:26 PM
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| Quote:
Don't know what "pre-cognition" is but you don't belive that some people have it naturally? That there's alpha males even in the human race? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-04-2008, 06:58 PM
| |||||
| |||||
|
“Don't know what "pre-cognition" is but you don't belive that some people have it naturally? That there's alpha males even in the human race?” Precognition is knowledge before it is learned through the senses. This topic is debatable. Are there alpha males in the human race? Sure why not, there always seems to be some inherent chain of influence in the world. Well, thanks? Well welcomed? “Jews where hated in Germany before Hitler steped up to the plate, they where wealthy, lived good, had political influance and oh yeah, Germany had a "Jew government" that declaired peace with France, England and USA during WWI at outrageous demands without even beeing close to loosing. The hate for Jews where there before Hitler started preaching, he just exploided it.” That’s a logical phalacy right there. Don’t assume or generalize anything or anybody. If I were to say that all white people follow Catholicism, you would probably have a problem with that. And I don’t think Germany had a “Jewish” government. They had Kaiser Wilhelm… He was German… and Catholic, and tried to bite off more than he could chew. And he was very close to losing… for a few years before he surrendered. The xenophobia for jewish people did exist before germany… which is sad in itself, and Hitler did exploit it in a cheap way. “It was a while ago I read "The Art of War" but I can't recall he ever mentionen anything about a higher spirit, not saying that you are wrong, just not saying that you're right.” Higher spirit in the relative sense of tactics and war. “well, yeah of course.. I wasn't saying that you have come to a conclusion but that should be the goal shouldn't it?” Exactly right! But coming to conclusions within closed systems doesn’t mean they are true in a grand sense, only within that system. The conclusion is relative. “I don't agree that it doesn't belong in philosophy, haven't the hate for ignorance and not knowing made philosophy what it is?”(wizzy) “Nope, it’s the embracement of ignorance as a core metaphysical concept.” (Spoon) “Probably just saying the same thing with different words here”(wizzy) Nope. Not hate for ignorance per se, but in fact understanding of ignorance and its value to philosophy. |
|
03-05-2008, 11:46 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
Well, for beeing able to take a stand for or against "precognition" I would have to define what "knowledge" is which is also a big part of philosophy, so I won't take a stand on that subject now, if you would like me to you'll have to start a new thread But I will say this: Yes, ofcourse there's alpha males in the world, difference between us and animals is that we have made systems for a long time to look for, finding and destroying them (for example, laws) so they should be few in numbers as is normally follow a bloodline... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Until the next time Spoon, god bless (ha!) :P
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-05-2008, 01:04 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| “But I will say this: Yes, ofcourse there's alpha males in the world, difference between us and animals is that we have made systems for a long time to look for, finding and destroying them (for example, laws) so they should be few in numbers as is normally follow a bloodline...” Animals have normative frameworks as well. Look at wolf packs or lion dens. Animals, like Leibniz states in his monodology, do not possess the intellectual soul, only the entelichie and animal soul which conceives and perceives but cannot rationalize. I bring this up because under his philosophy, we also, for 2/3 of our human lives, live with the animal soul… that is, without the ability to rationalize. As for finding and destroying them… I think that’s called regicide… the French were very good at that two hundred years ago, as well as the Bolshevik Russians a hundred years ago. “Wilhelm where the monarch, not the active ruler.. Not sure how it worked really but as it was a democracy it should have worked pretty much like my counrty (Sweden) does today, We have a king but he have no political influance more then that he can vote, although ours have rejected voting and wants to stay politicly neutral... You have to remember, this is the point in history where monarchs start losing their powers, but they still had them. Wilhelm was not only Kaiser, but commander and chief. He had much to say on matters of war for the germans. Monarchies exist in this day in age as figureheads… moral and psudo-divine examples to the rest of their country. The queen of England for example is also head of the church of England. Its their way of staying relevant in an age of democracy while staying true to purpose. “No it isn't... Tactics are logical ways of beating your enemy with inteligence while a higher spirit is something that have bigger powers then any physical creature have...” What about the warrior spirit? What about the embodiment of the heart and soul of a samurai within the sword? That gift of a soul to an object meant to kill is pretty divine looking to me. |
|
03-05-2008, 01:27 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
I can only respond "yeah" to this statement... Quote:
Quote:
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-05-2008, 09:05 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| ” Does it matter? The diplomatic government in Germany where to some level (should have been fairly high, haven't realy seen any numbers but remember when we had it in modern history class) Jews, and when the government declaired peace with the "enemy" to outrageous demands without a sign of loosing the war, they got blamed... Point of the matter is: Jews where looked down opon before Hitler exploided it, if they wouldn't have been Jews or any religion he wouldn't have been able to blame any group of people, just the people in that whole mess...” Exactly!!! Perhaps you have a very valid point!!! In the absence of religion, we come at last to a great equalizer in which people, not factions exist. As such, being “special” in fact creates bigger rifts in society by making others less special. Well said!!! “The warrior spirit (to me, ofcourse) is nothing els but a drive, a motivation, a energy to fight for what you belive is right and good... Not in anyway another creature influencing you, ofcourse, this is on the borderline isn't it? Agreed. The warrior spirit is relative. The creature so to speak in the case of the samurai is the embodiment of Bushido. And yeah sure, samurais in general probably belived their swords where living and lusting and so on but that doesn't mean that Sun Tzu ever claimd that "God" where influencing him to write "The Art of War", hence it will probably never be a religion.... Which is my point. That’s right. Sun Tzu never actually claimed that god was infused into any particular concept of war per se. War is a vehicle of mankind, which is corruptible in all senses. . And I would still like to claim that it is to some extent philosophy, although we'll probably just have to agree to dissagree....” I agree, there is indeed a philosophy of war. Is god absent from that equation as a sort of influence or justification for war? That I don’t know about. |
| The following users say: THANK YOU - VideCorSpoon for the above post! | ||
|
03-06-2008, 03:16 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
Yeah so imagien a religious free world, where that one group of factions is gone.. To my belives, Hitler couldn't have taken over Germany if the hate for Jews wouldn't have been there, and if there wouldn't have been jews, christians or muslims, it would have been realy hard for him to take power. And even if he would have been able to do it with promises of taking back Germanies pride, he still wouldn't have been able to kill those millions of Jews he did kill because they would have been the same as him or anybody els in Germany, people... That was my point al along with the statement about how religion would be a good thing to get rid of just because people fight about it... Quote:
So if he never claimed that God influenced him to write the art of war, and nobody have ever since then claimed that the book where something to be followed as laws, yet it is philosophy, but a higher spirit might not be absent in his philosophy if you start penetrating it.. Couldn't it be that the bible is seen as laws and something to be followed to the death just because it is "fictionalized philosophy" that somebody made a stupid misstake and trying to pass of as something better then the human way of thoughts? That all of this bloodshed done in the name of God or Allah or what ever comes from a few small people, with a small acceptence for other people and with big heads? The kind of people that most agree that one shouldn't listen to and follow?
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
