Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Nick_A]

Heracleitus

If you want to be free, you must be willing to risk your life and die in the defense of God's law. Otherwise, you do not even deserve to be free.

It seems that in your eyes only a radicalized man can be a free man. The radicalized man can kill with impunity, blame it on God, and call himself free.

[heracleitos]

It seems that in your eyes only a radicalized man can be a free man.

Apparently, there were a total of 75,000 Taliban fighters on a total population of 31 million in Afghanistan, i.e. 0.2% of the population. NATO clearly couldn't handle that. The Taliban wanted the foreign occupation troops to leave. I wonder what you consider so "radical" about that demand? So, yes, if just 0.2% of the population insists on God's law, then it gains the upper hand.

This is perfectly in line with what Nassim Taleb argues in his essay "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority." Most people will never be free, in a sense that their opinion will never matter. They will always find themselves renormalized into what the intolerant hardcore decides. Therefore, democracy has indeed always been and will always be a laughable idea. Things simply just don't work like that.

The radicalized man can kill with impunity, blame it on God, and call himself free.

They are currently fighting in Ukraine. Do you think that either side can kill with impunity? Furthermore, I don't think that anybody considers the belligerents in that war to be "radicalized".

[Nick_A]

Heracleitus wrote:

I do not seek the benefit of other people. I only seek my own benefit.

This raises the interesting question if a person can be free as a human being with this attitude. One of Simone Weil's insights deals with this question.

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.

The notion of rights, being of an objective order, is inseparable from the notions of existence and reality. [The obligation] always involves to a certain extent the taking into account of actual given states and particular situations. Rights are always found to be related to certain conditions. Obligations alone remain independent of conditions. They belong to a realm situated above all conditions, because it is situated above this world.

The realm of what is eternal, universal, unconditioned is other than the one conditioned by facts, and different ideas hold sway there, ones which are related to the most secret recesses of the human soul.

You suggest God's demands in the secular world create obligations telling you what to do. However obligations are eternal and can be remembered by conscience (anamnesis) reminding Man of what he IS. Blind indoctrinated following vs remembrance of what we are.

[LuckyR]

Not restrictive, eh? I want a ham sandwich

Nobody else cares if you eat pork. For example, I don't. Why would I? It is your stomach, isn't it? The only reason why I am not a fan of pork, is because multiple scriptures warn against eating it. I am not overly paranoia, but hey, better safe than sorry!

or wear a gold ring, sorry that's haram.

Well, only women can wear gold. So, in that case, wear platinum, or so. By the way, I do not even see the need for a man to wear jewellery or makeup. Unlike women, you are not going to attract the opposite sex by investing excessively in your appearance. There are other tricks that work much better than that. For example, make sure that other men treat you with dereference or at least respect. If other men treat you like the boss, that is even better. Next, have one or more fan girls ostensibly swooning over you. That is highly attractive, because women only want men that other women also want. The more you are the thing that she apparently cannot get, the more effort she will put in trying to be conveniently easy for you to take possession of.

Forget about sex outside of marriage, that's zina haram.

But for heaven's sake, what exactly is "marriage"?

Give the girl a monetary sign-up bonus in front of two witnesses -- for example a friend of yours and a friend of hers -- and tell her that you hereby buy the exclusive monopoly rights on her sexual organs. If she accepts the purchase price, you can legitimately have sex with her. It just takes 5 minutes to do that. So, where is the problem?

Of course, if it is her very first sexual contract, then she has to ask her parents if she can sell the monopoly on her sexual organs to you. But then again, how many virgins are there in the West? It is not as if the problem is going to occur that frequently.

Only virgins are entitled to a substantial bonus. The other ones must make do with a nominal and rather symbolic fee.

No, many, if not most find it restrictive.

These people are simply bad at law, procedures, formalisms, and loopholes.

That is why the very same people also find the tax law restrictive. I don't. I have never run into trouble with the tax department even though I have never paid anything either. Other people pay lots of taxes, even upfront, and still get massive fines afterwards. These people simply do not understand how to exploit the rules in order to achieve exactly the opposite outcome as what the ruling mafia intended.

The law exists solely for the purpose of exploitation. Either you exploit the law, or else, it is the law that will exploit you. The choice is yours.

Exactly my point! Thanks for posting. Don't follow the rules, now you're "free". So stop proposing following the rules.

[heracleitos]

Exactly my point! Thanks for posting. Don't follow the rules, now you're "free". So stop proposing following the rules.

"Exploiting" the rules is "following" the rules.
For example, tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion.

Exploiting the rules is perfectly allowed in pretty much every legal system.

[LuckyR]

Exactly my point! Thanks for posting. Don't follow the rules, now you're "free". So stop proposing following the rules.

"Exploiting" the rules is "following" the rules.
For example, tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion.

Exploiting the rules is perfectly allowed in pretty much every legal system.

Spoken exactly like a lawyer, but this is the Philosophy Forum, not the Legal Forum.

[Nick_A]

Exactly my point! Thanks for posting. Don't follow the rules, now you're "free". So stop proposing following the rules.

"Exploiting" the rules is "following" the rules.
For example, tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion.

Exploiting the rules is perfectly allowed in pretty much every legal system.

You believe in a man made interpretation of God telling you what to do that justifies blind belief and dying for. I support awakening to the eternal value of conscience revealing Man's objective purpose.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, NY Times, November 9, 1930.

IMO you represent the worst of blind believers willing to kill others with their morality completely oblivious of the cosmic religious feeling revealing the purpose of religion and the path to freedom as opposed to justifying egoism.

[heracleitos]

You believe in a man made interpretation of God

The rules that constitute our moral theory are necessarily man-transmitted, as they can only be expressed to us in a natural, human language.

I believe that the prophets received a copy of the keys needed to decrypt our biological firmware and to transmit to us what we are capable of understanding about it. This prophetic transmission constitute the core rules of our moral theory.

In other words, the Bible and the Quran are largely already encoded inside our biological firmware. The prophets received detailed instructions and guidance en provenance from the Almighty to extract parts of this firmware and reveal it to us.

This summary of our biological firmware constitutes a fragment of the theory that defines humanity. We are supposed to use our moral theory to evaluate moral propositions in terms of good or evil.

By the way, the truth is always an interpretation, i.e. a model, of a theory.

A true proposition successfully binds its non-logical symbols to an n-tuple of values as such that it that satisfies the requirements imposed by the theory. Such n-tuple is a true fact in the universe that interprets its theory. This is the very definition of the term "interpretation". Truth does not even exist without interpretation.

telling you what to do that justifies blind belief

Pure reason, i.e. in Kant's lingo, synthetic statements a priori, is defined as being "blind". Only perfectly blind reason is pure.

Read Kant's critique of pure reason, if you want to understand the details of why purity is so important. Without pure reason, you will not be able to understand the true nature of anything.

and dying for.

If need be, I am willing to die for my honor, my dignity, and my self-respect. It is our biological firmware that encourages us to do that.

I support awakening to the eternal value of conscience revealing Man's objective purpose.

Where is all of that documented and properly defined? I am personally not interested in "awakening" to such undocumented theory.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God.

...

But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
...
-- Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, NY Times, November 9, 1930.

The Almighty Lord is All-Knowing. He is obviously not a human, because that idea would simply be circular.

I personally use Alfred Tarski's notion of convention T to understand how all-knowing-ness works.

According to Tarski's undefinability theorem, the truth is undefinable in the object system (our universe}. However, the truth about the object system is effectively definable in a carefully crafted meta system.

Hence, the All-Knowing Lord has a copy of two keys, i.e. two theories -- of both heaven and earth -- i.e. the ToE and the MToE. The Quran explicitly confirms this view.

IMO you represent the worst of blind believers willing to kill others with their morality completely oblivious of the cosmic religious feeling revealing the purpose of religion and the path to freedom as opposed to justifying egoism.

Within the framework imposed by God's law, my own interests always come first.

Hence, the core question is ever:

What's in it for me?

If you want something from me, then make sure that I get something from you.

Seriously, why do you want something for nothing?

Do you really believe that I am going to go along with that? So, what are you bringing to the table? If it is not a good deal, I am not going to do it. In that case, ask another sucker.

Allah has permitted trade but forbidden usury (riba).

[Nick_A]

Hera

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 3:15 pm

IMO you represent the worst of blind believers willing to kill others with their morality completely oblivious of the cosmic religious feeling revealing the purpose of religion and the path to freedom as opposed to justifying egoism.
Within the framework imposed by God's law, my own interests always come first.

Hence, the core question is ever:

What's in it for me?

If you want something from me, then make sure that I get something from you.

Seriously, why do you want something for nothing?

Do you really believe that I am going to go along with that? So, what are you bringing to the table? If it is not a good deal, I am not going to do it. In that case, ask another sucker.

The crux of our differences. You are concerned with what's in it for you. Your religion caters to this secular desire: Might makes Right. Christianity in contrast, is for those experiencing that the world cannot satisfy the needs at the center of the human heart and through prayer, asks for help. Your interpretation of religion is selfish which opposes freedom and supports indoctrination, while Christianity emphasizes awakening to the voluntary obligations which when adopted make human freedom possible.

Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: "To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people.

You want to fight in the world, in Plato's cave, for selfish interests. Christianity seeks to psychologically leave the confines of Plato's Cave in pursuit of freedom

[heracleitos]

The crux of our differences. You are concerned with what's in it for you. Your religion caters to this secular desire ... You want to fight in the world, in Plato's cave, for selfish interests. Christianity seeks to psychologically leave the confines of Plato's Cave in pursuit of freedom

I am a supporter of the adelphochristos, the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the only legitimate successor to Christ, James the Just, while you are almost surely under the imprise of Peter, the traitor, and Paul, the obnoxious heresiarch, the fake apostle, and apostate from the law.

You surely also intend to deny Christ, three times before the rooster crows, because you are not under law but under Paul's disgrace.

Your fake freedom from God's law is worthless.

Your own biological firmware may very well prematurely commence its embedded preprogrammed shutdown procedure as your beliefs are contrary to God's will and your continued operation would defeat its object. In your own self-interest, you may consider to return to God's law before it is too late.

[Nick_A]

The crux of our differences. You are concerned with what's in it for you. Your religion caters to this secular desire ... You want to fight in the world, in Plato's cave, for selfish interests. Christianity seeks to psychologically leave the confines of Plato's Cave in pursuit of freedom

I am a supporter of the adelphochristos, the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the only legitimate successor to Christ, James the Just, while you are almost surely under the imprise of Peter, the traitor, and Paul, the obnoxious heresiarch, the fake apostle, and apostate from the law.

You surely also intend to deny Christ, three times before the rooster crows, because you are not under law but under Paul's disgrace.

Your fake freedom from God's law is worthless.

Your own biological firmware may very well prematurely commence its embedded preprogrammed shutdown procedure as your beliefs are contrary to God's will and your continued operation would defeat its object. In your own self-interest, you may consider to return to God's law before it is too late.

I looked up adelphochristos on Google and couldn't find it. Your whole argument is emotional name calling making it useless. The only thing worthy of discussion is if the intent of God's law can be followed without the help of grace leading to understanding. It cannot which is why secularism, political or religious, is doomed to failure resulting in tyranny. The human condition won't allow anything else.

[heracleitos]

I looked up adelphochristos on Google and couldn't find it.

I actually did what Nestorius did with the term "theodokos" (mother of God) by changing it into "christodokos" (mother of Christ).
So, in Nestorian fashion, I converted "adelphotheos" (brother of God) into adelphochristos (brother of Christ).

I would never use the terms "theodokos" or "adelphotheos" because these terms are clearly Byzantine blasphemies.

The only thing worthy of discussion is if the intent of God's law can be followed without the help of grace leading to understanding. It cannot which is why secularism, political or religious, is doomed to failure resulting in tyranny. The human condition won't allow anything else.

That depends on the outcome of the wars that are increasingly being fought on this matter.

For example, Vladimir Putin has already clarified that he finds the woke ideology of the West to be utterly Satanic. He has subtly suggested that he will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against the United States if they make any attempt at imposing it on the Russian Federation.

When the United States tried the same shenanigans with Afghanistan, they did not yet risk nuclear annihilation, but this time they really do. In my opinion, the United States are increasingly pushing their luck.

So, the question is not whether God's law will be preserved in the rest of the world (outside the West) but rather if the United States will manage to avoid their complete nuclear destruction. My intuition says that their arrogance will always regain the upper hand, and therefore, that their nuclear annihilation will sooner or later simply become a reality. Note that the Russians have pretty much already accepted that they will almost surely be annihilated as well. They don't care. In my intuition, they will not hesitate to strike first and then just see what happens next.

[Nick_A]

I looked up adelphochristos on Google and couldn't find it.

I actually did what Nestorius did with the term "theodokos" (mother of God) by changing it into "christodokos" (mother of Christ).
So, in Nestorian fashion, I converted "adelphotheos" (brother of God) into adelphochristos (brother of Christ).

I would never use the terms "theodokos" or "adelphotheos" because these terms are clearly Byzantine blasphemies.

The only thing worthy of discussion is if the intent of God's law can be followed without the help of grace leading to understanding. It cannot which is why secularism, political or religious, is doomed to failure resulting in tyranny. The human condition won't allow anything else.

That depends on the outcome of the wars that are increasingly being fought on this matter.

For example, Vladimir Putin has already clarified that he finds the woke ideology of the West to be utterly Satanic. He has subtly suggested that he will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against the United States if they make any attempt at imposing it on the Russian Federation.

When the United States tried the same shenanigans with Afghanistan, they did not yet risk nuclear annihilation, but this time they really do. In my opinion, the United States are increasingly pushing their luck.

So, the question is not whether God's law will be preserved in the rest of the world (outside the West) but rather if the United States will manage to avoid their complete nuclear destruction. My intuition says that their arrogance will always regain the upper hand, and therefore, that their nuclear annihilation will sooner or later simply become a reality. Note that the Russians have pretty much already accepted that they will almost surely be annihilated as well. They don't care. In my intuition, they will not hesitate to strike first and then just see what happens next.

The division is obvious. Those who have blind belief in a personal God telling them what to do are willing to go to war over what only exists in their imagination. The minority striving to awaken project the quality of presence that calms the mind and heart while offering a psychological alternative to absurdity. I support these rare ones.