The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Dak]

Yeah and with this analysis and reason I think any sound mind comes to the conclusion that faith designates blind acceptance of a certain hypothetical content. acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.

If it were not for personal experiences, completely removed from any possible religious or traumatic stimuli, I would probably be agnostic at this point. I would not, however, be atheist, as atheism is as irrational as it is arrogant.

While the inability to disprove something does not make it true, the inability to prove it does not make it false. Any rational, honest philosopher must treat the existence of a diety/ some form of creating or controlling entity as what it actually is: Undetermined. On a logical basis, anything more or less than this determination is quite discrediting, as it is subjective interpretation of subjectively selected data.

 

[Einherjar86]

Material conditions as our percepts? Explain material conditions? I'm just a bit confused.

Are you saying reality isn't cognitively knowable?

I'm not saying anything; rather, I'm offering some well-established views into the mix.

Even Hegel believed that reality was ultimately knowable; this was the Absolute, the Great Notion, which, through innumerable processes of dialectical synthesis, humanity could one day arrive at.

Hegel believed that to know the world, one began with ideas; ideas constitute material reality. Marx and Engels said that Hegel had the right idea (pun intended?), but he was standing on his head. Ideas don't beget reality; the material conditions of reality, rather, shape and inform our ways of knowing the world. In The German Ideology they write:

"In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. This is to say, we do not set out from what mean say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their life-processes we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life process... Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life."

Marx believed the world could be known as well; if Hegel was an idealist, meaning he believed the world could be known through cognition and concepts, then Marx was a materialist, meaning he believed the world could only be known through material conditions and real, active men doing active work; but if materiality conditions the way in which we perceive and think about the world, then any critique of absolutely any topic is immediately encompassed by those material conditions.

I'll quote Eagleton again to better illuminate the issue at stake:

"When Marx and Engels speak of setting out from 'real, active men' rather than from what these 'men' say, imagine and conceive, they sail perilously close to a naive sensuous empiricism which fails to grasp that there is no 'real life-process' without interpretation. To attempt to 'suspend' this realm of meaning in order to better examine 'real' conditions would be like killing a patient to examine more conveniently the circulation of her blood. As Raymond Williams has commented, this 'objectivist fantasy' presumes that real life conditions 'can be known independently of language and of historical records' [the insinuation being that language and historical records are material conditions/products that are pregnant with ideological suggestion]."

Both Hegel and Marx deploy a temporal, chronological method that aims to begin with either ideas/concepts or material conditions and arrive at the other; but each approach has its inherent problems:

1. By beginning with ideas, as Hegel does, one must concede that there is some ultimate, absolute, ideal truth, similar to a Kantian categorical imperative; but it cannot be true that ideas came before humankind could think them, so there are not universal truths, merely truths as established by their respective historical epistemes, or paradigms, or what have you.

2. By beginning with material conditions, as Marx does, one must concede that material conditions are that which give rise to all thought; but if this is the case, then the very act of critiquing them or understanding is itself dictated by those very same material conditions. Essentially, by critiquing them, one must logically undermine one's own argument.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

@ Dak - As an atheist and former agnostic in regard to all such claims, the agnostics are by far the most irrational. The agnostic is the type who says "I cant prove these claims are true, but you cant prove tey are false, so the only proper conclusion is I dont know. no one knows, no one can know one way or the other. The viewpoint poses as fair,impartial and balanced but is absolutly fallacious. First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider,discuss,svalute and then he regretfully says, "I dont know", instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Seci\ond, the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence forthe positive."its up to you to prove that the sixth moon of Saturn did not cause your sex life and that it was a result of your previous incarnation as an Egyptian pharoah". Third "maybe these things will one day be proved" In other words he asserts possiblities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis.

My point is the agnostic miscalculates and thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody when he is actually taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. He is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian who equates the groundless and the proved.agnostics actually believe that they are not taking a stand at all and therefore that they are safe,secure and invulnerable to attack. The fact is that their view is one of the falsest and the most cowardly stand there can be.

 

[Dak]

Paranormal and supernatural events are perceived to happen, and cannot be universally disproven through natural means. The atheist completely discounts these as his/her ideology has no ability to process them.

The treatment of non-fraudulent poltergeist instances, for example, by the scientific community has been nothing but unproven guesses, none of which seem any more rational than accepting the possibility of an entity operating outside the known parameters of the physical realm.

Witnesses to ghosts and other phenomena find themselves in a catch 22, as they cannot have claimed to have seen paranormal phenomena without being classified as mentally deficient.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The atheist completely discounts these as his/her ideology has no ability to process them.

 

[Dak]

How is that a slippery slope?

Edit: It might be a completely baseless accusation, but that has been my impression so far. I would love to be instructed otherwise. I do not however, see how it qualifies as a "slippery slope".

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ein, Honestly I can't stand Marx or Kant as they are both anti-life, as for Hegel and some continental philosophy it is utter nonsense and I mean complete total nonsense, as I've mentioned before when you're reading somebody or something and there is a sentence that you dont quite get, re-read it and take out the terms you don't understand and evaluate them establish it's meaning and define that term to figure out the final meaning in that sentence. There are terms to deduct unless it's just gibberish and nonsense which is what Hegel is. There is no way you can continue reading unless you finish the initial sentence (which is the problem with Hegel) In fact even with Aristotle if you go to the end of the paragraph you are better off , you will get the meaning of any given sentence in the paragraph but with Hegel you go to the end of the paragraph and now you have five sentences each with 3-4 terms in them that are nonsense to you, you dont know what he means by any of it, it's horrific! I think one thing Hegel disregards in his philosophy is basic concept-formation.

I've watched college students argue/discuss Hegel and it's like watching three year old's finger painting, and these are grad students. Everyone is giving an interpretation trying to get through a damn paragraph and as they are eager to get through to the next they hardly understood what the first sentence to the previous paragraph meant as they just read on. It's like looking at Picasso, sure it's looks (or in Hegel's case sounds) good but there is no way you can interpret it, I'm supposed to scratch my chin thoughtfully lol and they call it philosophy, bullshit.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ein, Honestly I can't stand Marx or Kant as they are both anti-life, as for Hegel and some continental philosophy it is utter nonsense and I mean complete total nonsense, as I've mentioned before when you're reading somebody or something and there is a sentence that you dont quite get, re-read it and take out the terms you don't understand and evaluate them establish it's meaning and define that term to figure out the final meaning in that sentence. There are terms to deduct unless it's just gibberish and nonsense which is what Hegel is. There is no way you can continue reading unless you finish the initial sentence (which is the problem with Hegel) In fact even with Aristotle if you go to the end of the paragraph you are better off , you will get the meaning of any given sentence in the paragraph but with Hegel you go to the end of the paragraph and now you have five sentences each with 3-4 terms in them that are nonsense to you, you dont know what he means by any of it, it's horrific! I think one thing Hegel disregards in his philosophy is basic concept-formation.

I've watched college students argue/discuss Hegel and it's like watching three year old's finger painting, and these are grad students. Everyone is giving an interpretation trying to get through a damn paragraph and as they are eager to get through to the next they hardly understood what the first sentence to the previous paragraph meant as they just read on. It's like looking at Picasso, sure it's looks (or in Hegel's case sounds) good but there is no way you can interpret it, I'm supposed to scratch my chin thoughtfully lol and they call it philosophy, bullshit.

No offense man, but for someone interested in these topics you're very dismissive. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't make it nonsense; furthermore, the trend in current philosophy departments to ignore thinkers like Hegel and Adorno doesn't make them irrelevant.

If I read your post correctly, you seem to criticize Hegel for composing sentences that lead into one another logically ("There is no way you can continue reading unless you finish the initial sentence"); I would say that if you're getting through philosophy by just reading the final sentence of each paragraph, you're in the wrong field of study. As far as deducting terms, I can understand that; but Hegel's terms are completely definable, and there are influential thinkers/writers who have done so convincingly. All it takes is some extra reading.

And lastly, I have no idea what you mean by calling Marx and Kant "anti-life"; either you've written them off far too quickly, or I'm not entirely understanding what you mean by that phrase.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but these are convincing and interesting historical thinkers and texts; and it's important to take them into consideration. Too many people take what is "obvious" for granted.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Altruist, both of them. Altruism is anti-life. Kant might be the most evil person in the history of mankind (on paper) ever.

and what I meant was if you can't finish the first sentence you can't continue on to the next. There are so many interpretations of Hegel; it's hard to take any of it seriously.

 

[Einherjar86]

Altruist, both of them. Altruism is anti-life. Kant might be the most evil person in the history of mankind (on paper) ever.

and what I meant was if you can't finish the first sentence you can't continue on to the next. There are so many interpretations of Hegel; it's hard to take any of it seriously.

Well, part of the many interpretations are what make it interesting (in my opinion); but I'd suggest doing some reading on Hegel before you make assumptions, because there are critics who have published successful explications of the material (i.e. explications that are typically accepted by much of academia). Robert Pippin and Alexandre Kojève are two immediate examples that come to mind.

As far as altruism being "anti-life," I am absolutely not prepared to grant you that without some kind of defense of your point. First of all, whose writings go to support your claim? Nietzsche was an anti-altruist, as I understand the term; but does he claim it's anti-life? As I understand Nietzsche, he advocates a raising of the self above others.

If altruism truly degrades the self while upholding the value of others, I still don't see how this supports your claim of "anti-life." I can see how altruism might devalue one's own life; but I would argue that it benefits the lives of others. Whether or not this is the proper ethical action is another matter; but it seems clear to me that, if an action benefits life in some way, it's anything but "anti-life." Maybe I don't understand what you mean by that term.

 

[Dak]

Voluntarily assisting someone in a mutually agreed upon manner, in regards to something they simply could not do otherwise, helps them. A good example from days of yore were barn-raisings. This does not render some one systemically dependent, but assists their independence.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Nature does not supply man with an automatic mode of survival, so since he has to support his life by his own effort the principle that concerns the individual and his own interest is evil, this means that man's desire to live is evil, that man's life in and of itself is evil. No principle could be more evil/anti-life than that. Yet that is the meaning of altruism; it holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value. A morality that holds need as a claim, holds non existence and emptiness as its standard of value and it rewards the absence of life, like some defect - weakness,inability,suffering,incompetence,disease,disaster,the lack/fault/flaw - the zero.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

As for Hegel I will check out Robert Pippin and Alexandre Kojève. Thx for the recommendation.

 

[Einherjar86]

No problem; but I want to hear some names from you that I can go to to learn more about this anti-life theory you're proposing.

First off, the paragraph you provide above is confusing. You say that since nature doesn't provide human beings with their own means of sustenance (i.e. they have to fend for themselves), the doctrine/principle that concerns the individual and his own interest is evil. This seems utterly and completely backwards to me within the context of your own argument. If human beings have to provide for themselves, doesn't it stand to reason that the doctrine of individuality is good? Even Kant says that human beings have a responsibility to sustain their own lives, and thus have a moral obligation not to commit suicide or put themselves in harm's way. Again, I'm unfamiliar with the argument you're making.

Second; you say that death is the ultimate goal of altruism, but I can't even fathom how you come to that conclusion or where you derive it from. I believe that altruism can entail death, but how is death its ultimate goal? A father might find himself put in a position where he must die to save his children; but this will ultimately harm them as well, and if he can manage to survive in order to take care of them further, it seems to me that life is the ultimate goal here. If altruism means living/existing for others, then I can't imagine how it yearns for death. The only yearning for death I know of is the Freudian/Lacanian notion of the "death drive," and that is far more subjective and individualistically concerned than any kind of altruist notion.

If you could provide a more in-depth explanation, or some sources you're familiar with, that would be a big help; because right now you're making unfounded and illogical claims, it seems to me.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

No problem; but I want to hear some names from you that I can go to to learn more about this anti-life theory you're proposing.

First off, the paragraph you provide above is confusing. You say that since nature doesn't provide human beings with their own means of sustenance (i.e. they have to fend for themselves), the doctrine/principle that concerns the individual and his own interest is evil. This seems utterly and completely backwards to me within the context of your own argument. If human beings have to provide for themselves, doesn't it stand to reason that the doctrine of individuality is good? Even Kant says that human beings have a responsibility to sustain their own lives, and thus have a moral obligation not to commit suicide or put themselves in harm's way. Again, I'm unfamiliar with the argument you're making.

lol no no no, I'm speaking as the altruist.

Second; you say that death is the ultimate goal of altruism, but I can't even fathom how you come to that conclusion or where you derive it from. I believe that altruism can entail death, but how is death its ultimate goal? A father might find himself put in a position where he must die to save his children; but this will ultimately harm them as well, and if he can manage to survive in order to take care of them further, it seems to me that life is the ultimate goal here. If altruism means living/existing for others, then I can't imagine how it yearns for death. The only yearning for death I know of is the Freudian/Lacanian notion of the "death drive," and that is far more subjective and individualistically concerned than any kind of altruist notion.

If you could provide a more in-depth explanation, or some sources you're familiar with, that would be a big help; because right now you're making unfounded and illogical claims, it seems to me.

Again you're misunderstanding me. It is the death of self.

 

[Einherjar86]

lol no no no, I'm speaking as the altruist.

No offense, but that seems like a pretty bad summary of how altruists arrive at their conclusion that individuality is evil. Since man has to provide for himself, individuality is evil? Are you skipping steps here?

Again you're misunderstanding me. It is the death of self.

Fantastic. Then say "death of the self," because "death" can mean a whole lot of things.

Are you pulling all of this out of your ass, or do you have some sources to back it up?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

No offense, but that seems like a pretty bad summary of how altruists arrive at their conclusion that individuality is evil. Since man has to provide for himself, individuality is evil? Are you skipping steps here?

No, the altruist says man must survive for himself only to sacrifice himself to other men, selflessness and duty is his goal. This is anti-individual. I'm saying man survives only for himself and not for the benefit of others, anything else is suicide.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I believe JD may be trying to formulate a change of discern

 

[Einherjar86]

No, the altruist says man must survive for himself only to sacrifice himself to other men, selflessness and duty is his goal. This is anti-individual. I'm saying man survives only for himself and not for the benefit of others, anything else is suicide.

Self-suicide, I presume; that is, suicide of the subject, not biological suicide.

I don't agree at all with your claim that altruism equates in a suicide of the subject; in fact, I think that Kant provides an argument against such a claim by arguing that preserving one's own life is a moral responsibility. If preserving one's own life is a moral responsibility, then I believe it stands to reason that individuality is a concern for Kant.

If altruists believe that they live for others, there must be an element of individualism inherent in their struggle for survival.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Self-suicide, I presume; that is, suicide of the subject, not biological suicide.

I don't agree at all with your claim that altruism equates in a suicide of the subject; in fact, I think that Kant provides an argument against such a claim by arguing that preserving one's own life is a moral responsibility. If preserving one's own life is a moral responsibility, then I believe it stands to reason that individuality is a concern for Kant.

If altruists believe that they live for others, there must be an element of individualism inherent in their struggle for survival.

Kant argues that preserving one's own life is a moral duty.

this is me paraphrasing now...

"An action is moral, said Kant,only if one has no desire to perform it,but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual, a benefit destroys the moral value of action."



Those who accept any part of this philosophy deserve it.