|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 29, 2019 7:17:31 GMT
Dostoevsky's character Ivan in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" said:
(i) If there's no God, everything is permissible
This is an interesting decision of Ivan, because we can get this using MT:
(ii) If everything is not permissible, there's a God
The second one is not pretty one, because, well, it's obvious that we cannot just use such formulation to get something correct. It would be too easy. We might think that the formulation doesn't need to be understand as an implication. But, at the same time, it can't be not asked - what is the logical link between antecedent and consequent then? At the same time what except implication can be used here? Equation? - No. Because we might get from equations two implications. So, we have to try to reformulate the consequent, for example, into this one:
(iii) If there's no God, something is permissible
Actually, (iii) is not bad at all. Some barriers and laws in our life help us much. Without any barriers and determiners life would be terribly strange; we'd live in an eternal void or something. Trying to correct this formulation into its more good looking view, we might add something to it:
(iv) If there's no God, something terrible is permissible
The fourth one formulation looks better, but the connection between the antecedent and consequent of (i) - as the primal formulation for the novel - is not so obvious.
Well, there are lots can be said here. I think I will stop here for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 30, 2019 5:46:15 GMT
What kind of education did this character have and what kind of upbringing?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 30, 2019 8:03:26 GMT
What kind of education did this character have and what kind of upbringing? Oh... Eugene confused Ivan with Rodion Raskolnikov from "Crime and Punishment". There are many similar types in both characters, so... Raskolnikov was enough well educated. At least he knew modern philosophy of his time, he read literature, he knew art, and he knew history very well. He wanted to become a great person as well as Napoleon. His childhood and young years were not good, not bad. The most important thing in this novel that Raskolnikov wanted to become someone like Hegel described. Eugene thinks that it is very likely that Dostoevsky wanted to answer Hegel on his historical Geist program that it would be failed.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 30, 2019 16:23:50 GMT
Voltaire once said that if there were no God, men would invent one. Well, men have invented one, but it does not follow that there is a God. What amazes me is that in the henotheistic religions, the one God [of their choice] is male. Why? Semitic peoples ranked males above females, and obviously their God had to be male and, in fact, excluded any female deity. In the most ancient Greek theism, the sky [Ouranos] was the highest Power or God. In the course of their mythology, Zeus succeeded Ouranos and Chronos, and is invoked as "Ana Zeu" [Zeus on High!; Supernal Zeus]After the development of agriculture, everybody recognized the earth [Khthon, Khthonie]as the great mother of vegetation, grain plans, etc. So, another supreme deity was introduced and called Gaia; Demeter; etc.] I suppose that at first, She was called Hekate [he-Kata`-e: the one below], but then this name was restricted to the luminous manifestations in the night. The Sun and the other six luminaries [planets] in the sky were the free offsprings of Sky and Earth and are still celebrated in the post-Greek Jewish [Canaanite] Feast of Lights, symbolized by the Menorah ( interpreted by a legend about lamps or, later, by the Patriarchs/Prophets). In the beginning were Sky and Earth or, in the Biblical [Canaanite] version, God fashioned sky and earth.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 1, 2019 18:14:15 GMT
Voltaire once said that if there were no God, men would invent one. Well, men have invented one, but it does not follow that there is a God. What amazes me is that in the henotheistic religions, the one God [of their choice] is male. Why? Semitic peoples ranked males above females, and obviously their God had to be male and, in fact, excluded any female deity. In the most ancient Greek theism, the sky [Ouranos] was the highest Power or God. In the course of their mythology, Zeus succeeded Ouranos and Chronos, and is invoked as "Ana Zeu" [Zeus on High!; Supernal Zeus]After the development of agriculture, everybody recognized the earth [Khthon, Khthonie]as the great mother of vegetation, grain plans, etc. So, another supreme deity was introduced and called Gaia; Demeter; etc.] I suppose that at first, She was called Hekate [ he-Kata`- e: the one below], but then this name was restricted to the luminous manifestations in the night. The Sun and the other six luminaries [planets] in the sky were the free offsprings of Sky and Earth and are still celebrated in the post-Greek Jewish [Canaanite] Feast of Lights, symbolized by the Menorah ( interpreted by a legend about lamps or, later, by the Patriarchs/Prophets). In the beginning were Sky and Earth or, in the Biblical [Canaanite] version, God fashioned sky and earth. Voltaire was a big joker too =) I agree with you about the problem of gender of using God's name. I met some using of it on Internet; some mentioned God as "He", some as "She", and the minor category called God "It". Yes, Bible has many quotes with God as "He", and it's obviously that during the ancient times a man was considered as on the top comparably to a woman. (Pros here, I guess, is that in the the ancient times the role of a man was much more higher than now. Besides, it was a way of how politics and the other relationships were appeared. Men invent politics, philosophy and the rest of what we call it now as "the culture". The main truth, I think, is that "men have not created the culture", but "men have created a masculine type culture".) If we talk about God, and God is God (so, God is the one who's omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient), then God is over all of those "He", "She", "It", or kinda. In our daily conversations, I see no problem with using another person God as "She", or "It". However, I would mind if a person would say that in Bible we had to read She instead of He.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 1, 2019 22:03:19 GMT
Dostoevsky's character Ivan in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" said: (i) If there's no God, everything is permissibleThis is an interesting decision of Ivan, because we can get this using MT: (ii) If everything is not permissible, there's a GodThe second one is not pretty one, because, well, it's obvious that we cannot just use such formulation to get something correct. It would be too easy. We might think that the formulation doesn't need to be understand as an implication. But, at the same time, it can't be not asked - what is the logical link between antecedent and consequent then? At the same time what except implication can be used here? Equation? - No. Because we might get from equations two implications. So, we have to try to reformulate the consequent, for example, into this one: (iii) If there's no God, something is permissible
Actually, (iii) is not bad at all. Some barriers and laws in our life help us much. Without any barriers and determiners life would be terribly strange; we'd live in an eternal void or something. Trying to correct this formulation into its more good looking view, we might add something to it: (iv) If there's no God, something terrible is permissible
The fourth one formulation looks better, but the connection between the antecedent and consequent of (i) - as the primal formulation for the novel - is not so obvious. Well, there are lots can be said here. I think I will stop here for a while. Hereditary Power Is the Secret Cancer That Has Destroyed All SocietiesAnother transformation indicates how many of our ideas are one-sided, which makes them incomplete. If a father is sentenced to 10 years in prison and dies after five years, the assertion is that his son wouldn't have to serve out the last five years. But to be complete, that universally acceptable idea would have to also mean that if a father has 10 million dollars and dies with five million left, his son shouldn't get the remaining five million. Leftover wealth must go back to the public, the millionaire's employees, or to the most talented of the son's generation. A society where success is biased towards birth rather than worth will soon die.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 1, 2019 22:14:18 GMT
Voltaire once said that if there were no God, men would invent one. Well, men have invented one, but it does not follow that there is a God. What amazes me is that in the henotheistic religions, the one God [of their choice] is male. Why? Semitic peoples ranked males above females, and obviously their God had to be male and, in fact, excluded any female deity. In the most ancient Greek theism, the sky [Ouranos] was the highest Power or God. In the course of their mythology, Zeus succeeded Ouranos and Chronos, and is invoked as "Ana Zeu" [Zeus on High!; Supernal Zeus]After the development of agriculture, everybody recognized the earth [Khthon, Khthonie]as the great mother of vegetation, grain plans, etc. So, another supreme deity was introduced and called Gaia; Demeter; etc.] I suppose that at first, She was called Hekate [ he-Kata`- e: the one below], but then this name was restricted to the luminous manifestations in the night. The Sun and the other six luminaries [planets] in the sky were the free offsprings of Sky and Earth and are still celebrated in the post-Greek Jewish [Canaanite] Feast of Lights, symbolized by the Menorah ( interpreted by a legend about lamps or, later, by the Patriarchs/Prophets). In the beginning were Sky and Earth or, in the Biblical [Canaanite] version, God fashioned sky and earth. The Road to Perdition Is PatricianWhat all you Preppyphiles won't ask about Christianity is, "Why does Jesus have to be the Son of God? The Holy Ghost isn't, so why can't Jesus just be another manifestation of the Trinity without dishonestly and illogically pushing the fatal absurdity 'Like Father, Like Son'." It should be no surprise that the Catholic Church became polluted by a hereditary hierarchy. Practically all the bishops, cardinals, and popes came from the spoiled-putrid guillotine-fodder nobility. Those who tell us, "Do It on Your Own," but won't tell their children that must be silenced.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 2, 2019 16:40:09 GMT
Dostoevsky's character Ivan in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" said: (i) If there's no God, everything is permissibleThis is an interesting decision of Ivan, because we can get this using MT: (ii) If everything is not permissible, there's a GodThe second one is not pretty one, because, well, it's obvious that we cannot just use such formulation to get something correct. It would be too easy. We might think that the formulation doesn't need to be understand as an implication. But, at the same time, it can't be not asked - what is the logical link between antecedent and consequent then? At the same time what except implication can be used here? Equation? - No. Because we might get from equations two implications. So, we have to try to reformulate the consequent, for example, into this one: (iii) If there's no God, something is permissible
Actually, (iii) is not bad at all. Some barriers and laws in our life help us much. Without any barriers and determiners life would be terribly strange; we'd live in an eternal void or something. Trying to correct this formulation into its more good looking view, we might add something to it: (iv) If there's no God, something terrible is permissible
The fourth one formulation looks better, but the connection between the antecedent and consequent of (i) - as the primal formulation for the novel - is not so obvious. Well, there are lots can be said here. I think I will stop here for a while. Hereditary Power Is the Secret Cancer That Has Destroyed All SocietiesAnother transformation indicates how many of our ideas are one-sided, which makes them incomplete. If a father is sentenced to 10 years in prison and dies after five years, the assertion is that his son wouldn't have to serve out the last five years. But to be complete, that universally acceptable idea would have to also mean that if a father has 10 million dollars and dies with five million left, his son shouldn't get the remaining five million. Leftover wealth must go back to the public, the millionaire's employees, or to the most talented of the son's generation. A society where success is biased towards birth rather than worth will soon die. Incomplete ideas? Hmm... it's very interesting. bu You know, reading Hobbes today I was thinking about Menon of Plato where pre-knowledge problem was mentioned. Pre-knowledge is very interesting stuff. Usually, there are lots of discussing about it: how our mind builds them and so on. But what is the most incredible is that in Plato's Menon has been shown: pre-understanding of some elements of the world, or some ideas. For example, if I ask you to imagine a Geometrical square your imagination will construct exactly such a square that its diagonals are symmetrical, corners are equal, and so on. And this is amazing! It shows that some of the elements of our reality (images) can be constructed similar to each other in different heads! And if ideas are constructed by images or of its parts, it seems that they might be the same for some of people. "A society where success is biased towards birth rather than worth will soon die" - No, it will live. Stupid societies are tough and enough strong for me, or for anyone else. I couldn't destroy any society even if I would try to do all the best to end this. I do not reckon societies as something like a table, or a chair; or an idea, or a verb. A society - is a damn force that is so much much stronger than any other things in the world. I hate this force, but as I've said before there's nothing I can do to finish it. We're chained to this force no matter we do. I do not think that I am tied up with a society. I would be ok without humanity, but - what is 100% definitely - I would stop thinking just like I used to do. And anyone is the same. Without societies our skulls would be as empty cans. They fill the semantics of our languages. As they say "only in debates the truth can be achieved". Sense our lives are withing societies. If I'm hated - I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 3, 2019 19:00:20 GMT
Hereditary Power Is the Secret Cancer That Has Destroyed All SocietiesAnother transformation indicates how many of our ideas are one-sided, which makes them incomplete. If a father is sentenced to 10 years in prison and dies after five years, the assertion is that his son wouldn't have to serve out the last five years. But to be complete, that universally acceptable idea would have to also mean that if a father has 10 million dollars and dies with five million left, his son shouldn't get the remaining five million. Leftover wealth must go back to the public, the millionaire's employees, or to the most talented of the son's generation. A society where success is biased towards birth rather than worth will soon die. Incomplete ideas? Hmm... it's very interesting. bu You know, reading Hobbes today I was thinking about Menon of Plato where pre-knowledge problem was mentioned. Pre-knowledge is very interesting stuff. Usually, there are lots of discussing about it: how our mind builds them and so on. But what is the most incredible is that in Plato's Menon has been shown: pre-understanding of some elements of the world, or some ideas. For example, if I ask you to imagine a Geometrical square your imagination will construct exactly such a square that its diagonals are symmetrical, corners are equal, and so on. And this is amazing! It shows that some of the elements of our reality (images) can be constructed similar to each other in different heads! And if ideas are constructed by images or of its parts, it seems that they might be the same for some of people. "A society where success is biased towards birth rather than worth will soon die" - No, it will live. Stupid societies are tough and enough strong for me, or for anyone else. I couldn't destroy any society even if I would try to do all the best to end this. I do not reckon societies as something like a table, or a chair; or an idea, or a verb. A society - is a damn force that is so much much stronger than any other things in the world. I hate this force, but as I've said before there's nothing I can do to finish it. We're chained to this force no matter we do. I do not think that I am tied up with a society. I would be ok without humanity, but - what is 100% definitely - I would stop thinking just like I used to do. And anyone is the same. Without societies our skulls would be as empty cans. They fill the semantics of our languages. As they say "only in debates the truth can be achieved". Sense our lives are withing societies. If I'm hated - I'm done. Make Every Dynasty Die NastySocieties are overwhelmed by the hostile power of their ruling classes, which are not society's best. The unworthiness of those on top, placed there solely because of their Daddies' money or slavish obedience to such spoiled brats, makes them desperate to keep that illegitimate power by all means possible, especially by lifelong brainwashing of those who Daddies aren't rich. Because of your insulting illusion that it is society's fault, not its ruling clique, you are anti-social and merely desire to feel superior to the majority. The aristocracy is making you a dummy for its hired ventriloquists in the media.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 3, 2019 23:16:41 GMT
Dostoevsky's character Ivan in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" said: (i) If there's no God, everything is permissibleThis is an interesting decision of Ivan, because we can get this using MT: (ii) If everything is not permissible, there's a GodThe second one is not pretty one, because, well, it's obvious that we cannot just use such formulation to get something correct. It would be too easy. We might think that the formulation doesn't need to be understand as an implication. But, at the same time, it can't be not asked - what is the logical link between antecedent and consequent then? At the same time what except implication can be used here? Equation? - No. Because we might get from equations two implications. So, we have to try to reformulate the consequent, for example, into this one: (iii) If there's no God, something is permissible
Actually, (iii) is not bad at all. Some barriers and laws in our life help us much. Without any barriers and determiners life would be terribly strange; we'd live in an eternal void or something. Trying to correct this formulation into its more good looking view, we might add something to it: (iv) If there's no God, something terrible is permissible
The fourth one formulation looks better, but the connection between the antecedent and consequent of (i) - as the primal formulation for the novel - is not so obvious. Well, there are lots can be said here. I think I will stop here for a while. If there is no God, then we have no free will. The notion of things being "permissible" (or not), hinges on the notion that we can choose our destiny. Everything is permissible, but everything has consequences. Some certainly insist in God existing, but not free will; whereas others will claim no God with free will. But those have not been thought through logically. A Godless universe, can only be a determined physical mechanism; whereas the existence of consciousness being independent of the physical mechanistic world can only be accounted for by the ontological existence of a non-material soul. Those who claim free will is meaningful in a mechanistic world, really only demonstrate how the mind is actually independent of causal physical processes with their willful negligence of logic. Those who claim God is a determinist really show their lack of faith, and are properly to be seen as Sacramentarians: those who fake religion for reasons of social acceptability. In a purely physical universe, all our decisions would have to be perfectly logical, because physical causality is always perfectly consequential. The very existence of questions of morality to be chosen, implies that consciousness is NOT a product of perfectly determined consequences. Here we see the similarity between authentic believers and authentic atheists following through their respective cosmologies logically, and then there are those who lack authenticity in their thinking. So to return to your statements: (v) if there is no God, everything is inevitable(and it would be pointless and impossible to even consider it otherwise) We simply would not be able to consider the existence of anything non-causal in a purely physical universe. (vi) because we have choices, God is real(enter the Soul into the discussion at this point) As for Dostoevsky, he shows how the immoral choice seeks resolution through confession of guilt - the Soul seeking absolution. His attention to detail is immense and only by reading him can it be appreciated. And yet, ironically, the Russia which followed on from his writing rejects, God, morality, and Dostoevsky's lessons. But finally Communism dies, and the Russian church is really its successor.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 3, 2019 23:30:37 GMT
thesageofmainstreetWhat you say is true, but you need to look at the alternatives. On your side, we see the Russian and French revolutions, where hereditary power becomes so obscene, that the consequences are as appalling as they are inevitable. But those revolutions themselves simply spawn more of the same albeit in another guise. And yet here we watch the West with its blatant nepotism make all those same errors. Are we to suggest that all forms of hereditary process are bad? If so, those who now have license will descend like vultures upon every death-bed. Having fought off the heirs, having risked death, are they now going to SHARE in the spoils? Almost never. When society is a hotbed of hereditary corruption, who is going to voluntarily give it up? Almost nobody. The best solution seems to be that there is simply a limit on what is hereditary. But then token sale to the heir will take place before death in most cases, so who benefits? Almost nobody. Are governments better at using wealth for the collective good than private individuals? But the governments are themselves just a cover-up for those private individuals anyway! Social Justice is like trying to catch sunlight in your hand. Because the legal decisions as to what is allowed in hereditary terms is itself just another nepotistic process, so all you are doing is promoting one thief over another.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 5, 2019 19:38:03 GMT
thesageofmainstreet What you say is true, but you need to look at the alternatives. On your side, we see the Russian and French revolutions, where hereditary power becomes so obscene, that the consequences are as appalling as they are inevitable. But those revolutions themselves simply spawn more of the same albeit in another guise. And yet here we watch the West with its blatant nepotism make all those same errors. Are we to suggest that all forms of hereditary process are bad? If so, those who now have license will descend like vultures upon every death-bed. Having fought off the heirs, having risked death, are they now going to SHARE in the spoils? Almost never. When society is a hotbed of hereditary corruption, who is going to voluntarily give it up? Almost nobody. The best solution seems to be that there is simply a limit on what is hereditary. But then token sale to the heir will take place before death in most cases, so who benefits? Almost nobody. Are governments better at using wealth for the collective good than private individuals? But the governments are themselves just a cover-up for those private individuals anyway! Social Justice is like trying to catch sunlight in your hand. Because the legal decisions as to what is allowed in hereditary terms is itself just another nepotistic process, so all you are doing is promoting one thief over another. Those Born With Silver Spoons Will Always Speak With Forked TonguesThe French "revolution" was the hereditary 2% giving the 98% no other right than to kill the hereditary 1% for them. Unfortunately, the plebeians didn't finish the job, but their success might have made them go on and establish a democracy, which is the rule of the majority by referendums, not representation. Terrified by the close call, the hereditary powers came up with a scheme to take over the democratic movements through the Socialist scam. Once empowered by the gullible masses, the HeirHeads would establish a dictatorship over them. The illusion of being Born to Rule is the source of Communist tyranny; it does not follow from the ideology they preach, which is confused and unrealistic nonsense anyway. Karl Marx, a spoiled and degenerate richkid Philosophy dilettante, was seduced into joining that movement by his wife, a countess who had enough rank to marry the Kaiser, the Czar, or the King of England. The false-flag of the Left Wing of the hereditary plutocracy is reinforced by the illusion that they had voluntarily given up their aristocratic power to help those who had no power. The Right Wing of our hereditary regime tries to convince people that revolutions inevitably lead to anarchy and then to dictatorship. They constantly lie about imaginary historical democracies failing, when all of those were really republics. When you promote the lie that the more things change, the more they wind up being the same corrupt and authoritarian government that was overthrown (So why not submit to the tyranny at hand?), you are playing into the hands of the static and stagnant status quo, which is desperate to continue its unearned hereditary power. Those fatalistic dogmas and passive acceptance of inferior people in all superior positions are what the enemies of democracy are counting on.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jul 6, 2019 6:19:47 GMT
What amazes me is that in the henotheistic religions, the one God [of their choice] is male. Why? For the same reason that a chimpanzee group is led by an alpha-male and not an alpha-female. Like chimpanzees, it is natural for humans to be led by an alpha-male. Making God masculine allows God to serve as the virtual alpha-male of a human society, which prevents a human male from occupying this position, which allows for freedom within the group. This is why democracy only originated in societies with a strong alpha-male god.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 6, 2019 20:12:07 GMT
Dostoevsky's character Ivan in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" said: (i) If there's no God, everything is permissibleThis is an interesting decision of Ivan, because we can get this using MT: (ii) If everything is not permissible, there's a GodThe second one is not pretty one, because, well, it's obvious that we cannot just use such formulation to get something correct. It would be too easy. We might think that the formulation doesn't need to be understand as an implication. But, at the same time, it can't be not asked - what is the logical link between antecedent and consequent then? At the same time what except implication can be used here? Equation? - No. Because we might get from equations two implications. So, we have to try to reformulate the consequent, for example, into this one: (iii) If there's no God, something is permissible
Actually, (iii) is not bad at all. Some barriers and laws in our life help us much. Without any barriers and determiners life would be terribly strange; we'd live in an eternal void or something. Trying to correct this formulation into its more good looking view, we might add something to it: (iv) If there's no God, something terrible is permissible
The fourth one formulation looks better, but the connection between the antecedent and consequent of (i) - as the primal formulation for the novel - is not so obvious. Well, there are lots can be said here. I think I will stop here for a while. Thank you for an interesting answer.If there is no God, then we have no free will. - Why?
I can take it considering that: God is a person with maximum abilities. So, the real free will is a will with mega powerful abilities, and that's why we need God for our free will (I). - If this is exactly the thought, then I can say that it's not necessary for God to appear right now. We can create (invent, build...) God in future. If it would be possible, we would achieve the features in future.
The notion of things being "permissible" (or not), hinges on the notion that we can choose our destiny. Everything is permissible, but everything has consequences. - Do everything have consequences? Do we live in the endless universe? They say we're not.Some certainly insist in God existing, but not free will; whereas others will claim no God with free will (II). - Yeah. Just like Augustine, and the Calvinists. And this is an interesting thought. The II contrasts with I: (I) - A concept of God demonstrates that at least one thing that has overpowerful abilities exists. (II) - God knows everything and anything can be done without his being alert of this. Actually, I and II shows two different sides, because I and II are coincidentally cover each other. However, in I there's a thought that "God" point can likely be reached, and in II this thought is denied.
But those have not been thought through logically. - The same here. There's a specific logic.A Godless universe, can only be a determined physical mechanism; whereas the existence of consciousness being independent of the physical mechanistic world can only be accounted for by the ontological existence of a non-material soul. - Why soul? And - what wasn't unexpected - why material and non-material should be divided? Surely, separating one from another we would have a problem. So, no need to do this. I'm not sure that taking out God from the reality (the world, the universe - the place we live...) is the way of constructing material world (It's less likely that "God minus the Universe = material world"). Before God as a person (human-like deity) we had spiritual, animalisitic... whatsoever world. That's why "taking God out from the reality" could possibly reduce us animistic reality.Those who claim free will is meaningful in a mechanistic world, really only demonstrate how the mind is actually independent of causal physical processes with their willful negligence of logic. Those who claim God is a determinist really show their lack of faith, and are properly to be seen as Sacramentarians: those who fake religion for reasons of social acceptability. - I agree on it. I absolutely sure that if God exists he doesn't act in "materialisic" only style. "Materialiscique" thinking as I understand it is nothing, but a certain tradition that supposedly comes from XVII century. There are lots of the history of science interpretations, and I don't want to dive in any of them; nevertheless, the language of science in XVII-XIX centuries had many similar notions, determiners, concepts. In a purely physical universe, all our decisions would have to be perfectly logical, because physical causality is always perfectly consequential. - Not as perfectly as we would want to. What decisions in strongly determined world? (The same is fair for II.) Such universe would be perfect in logical sense, because limits of logic would exactly suits primitive structure of the content of the world. Almost everyone described situations that are not primitive (III) (I can't divide here "primitiveness" from its negation because of many complex additions. I know that Wittgenstein in "Logical Investigations" classifies such language by its rang.)The very existence of questions of morality to be chosen, implies that consciousness is NOT a product of perfectly determined consequences. - Exactly. The objection of this type was used against Ayer's emotivistique claims. And, at the same time, this is one of the conditions (or foundations) that corresponds with III.Here we see the similarity between authentic believers and authentic atheists following through their respective cosmologies logically, and then there are those who lack authenticity in their thinking. - Well, I may think that we're talking about a certain believers and atheists - the authentic ones (IV).So to return to your statements: (v) if there is no God, everything is inevitable(and it would be pointless and impossible to even consider it otherwise) We simply would not be able to consider the existence of anything non-causal in a purely physical universe. - As I said above - and, according to detail IV:(vi) because we have choices, God is real(enter the Soul into the discussion at this point) - Non (Deductively) Sequitur. We can achieve that the materialistic view is wrong. History shows us that such a view is wrong. And this is a real reason (and I do agree with you what you've said right down:As for Dostoevsky, he shows how the immoral choice seeks resolution through confession of guilt - the Soul seeking absolution. His attention to detail is immense and only by reading him can it be appreciated. And yet, ironically, the Russia which followed on from his writing rejects, God, morality, and Dostoevsky's lessons. - This is almost absolutely truth. I'm just being impressed how precise and perfect your answer is. Yes. Yes. Yes. Today's Russia, at least in her appearance forms, shows us denying of what Dostoevsky said. And many Western countries do follow the writer's words. But finally Communism dies, and the Russian church is really its successor. - Even being not completely agree on categorical format of this sentence, however, communistique tentacles are carnivore and greed. Let's count this bad property as a sickness, rather than intention.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 6, 2019 20:28:01 GMT
Incomplete ideas? Hmm... it's very interesting. bu You know, reading Hobbes today I was thinking about Menon of Plato where pre-knowledge problem was mentioned. Pre-knowledge is very interesting stuff. Usually, there are lots of discussing about it: how our mind builds them and so on. But what is the most incredible is that in Plato's Menon has been shown: pre-understanding of some elements of the world, or some ideas. For example, if I ask you to imagine a Geometrical square your imagination will construct exactly such a square that its diagonals are symmetrical, corners are equal, and so on. And this is amazing! It shows that some of the elements of our reality (images) can be constructed similar to each other in different heads! And if ideas are constructed by images or of its parts, it seems that they might be the same for some of people. "A society where success is biased towards birth rather than worth will soon die" - No, it will live. Stupid societies are tough and enough strong for me, or for anyone else. I couldn't destroy any society even if I would try to do all the best to end this. I do not reckon societies as something like a table, or a chair; or an idea, or a verb. A society - is a damn force that is so much much stronger than any other things in the world. I hate this force, but as I've said before there's nothing I can do to finish it. We're chained to this force no matter we do. I do not think that I am tied up with a society. I would be ok without humanity, but - what is 100% definitely - I would stop thinking just like I used to do. And anyone is the same. Without societies our skulls would be as empty cans. They fill the semantics of our languages. As they say "only in debates the truth can be achieved". Sense our lives are withing societies. If I'm hated - I'm done. Make Every Dynasty Die NastySocieties are overwhelmed by the hostile power of their ruling classes, which are not society's best. The unworthiness of those on top, placed there solely because of their Daddies' money or slavish obedience to such spoiled brats, makes them desperate to keep that illegitimate power by all means possible, especially by lifelong brainwashing of those who Daddies aren't rich. Because of your insulting illusion that it is society's fault, not its ruling clique, you are anti-social and merely desire to feel superior to the majority. The aristocracy is making you a dummy for its hired ventriloquists in the media. Well, I apologize, but what you've said is an obvious truth. I think that we all know about it. And what is the most terrible, we know about it, but it cannot have already been prevented for a long time. I don't think separating the best from the worst by money is the right way. As, for example, J. Peterson says: "Any society has (its) hierarchy". I would say, any society requires hierarchy to appear. To break this hierarchy must be a key to untie this. The exclusively minority is almost always "the enemy". The center of leaders in schools can be taken as a perfect example. Who didn't know that? There were "hooligans", and there were "good guys" who lurk themselves in a shadow. As J. Wisdom said once that grown-ups were just more messy and more complex (in using language) children.
|
|