Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 10:01 pm To play music loud enough to wake the dead? To implement: a Strat and a wall of Marshall stacks might do the trick.

They're thinking now the Ancient Egyptians quarried and moved stone through sound so my idea might not be so far fetched

jerlands wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 9:48 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 9:42 pm

You're then faced with an unsolvable problem.

Not really. The solutions there. I just need to know how to implement it.

That won't shake a skeleton. Try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_zsJ8KPP0

jerlands wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 12:10 pm

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 2:00 am Pride/sin is the belief that we have free-will/choice.

I think you wish to believe that as justification for not taking responsibility (not assuming the burden of choice.)
.

Not at all.
I'd be happy to show the logical support for the comment, if you like.
I already have pretty much spelled out why and what.
I can take it more slowly if you are really interested in understanding.
A little thought makes the truth of my statement rather obvious, unless one believes in free-will/choice (is bound and blind in Pride), at which point one defends it (free-will/choice) with everything, and ignores ---> kills that which appears to 'threaten' such a 'sinful egoic structure'.

jerlands
Suffering is the search for an answer to survival. It is encumbered by all of creation and thus given the world. The Biblical story however subjects Adam and Eve to the notions of good and evil, philosophical concepts that separate man from beast. Adam and Eve were given a choice by "God" and they took accepted that choice as their destiny to be an active participant in a solution (as some might interpret the story.)

But this is a bible story. My problem with thinking like this is that it covers up what is genuinely important with narrative. You could have told me any one of a number of scriptural tales, but they would each possess an assumption that cannot be clearly defended. Why not allow yourself to think philosophically, put aside stories, and move to what underlies them? E.g., this Adam and Eve story from Genesis vis a vis good and evil: you talk of choice, but can you make sense of this term? When you talk about god, what do you mean without dogmatic reference to an ancient book?
I am not trying to be insulting, it's just that I believe people, especially people like you who, like myself, are inclined to interpret the world as a deeply meaningful place, need to look more deeply into your religious beliefs.

Actually all creation has notions of right and wrong as demonstrated by certain form of behavior such as "pack."

Pray, elaborate.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 3:06 amte]
Pray, elaborate.

Which? *__-

pack??

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 2:35 am

jerlands wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 12:10 pm
I think you wish to believe that as justification for not taking responsibility (not assuming the burden of choice.)
.

Not at all.
I'd be happy to show the logical support for the comment, if you like.
I already have pretty much spelled out why and what.
I can take it more slowly if you are really interested in understanding.
A little thought makes the truth of my statement rather obvious, unless one believes in free-will/choice (is bound and blind in Pride), at which point one defends it (free-will/choice) with everything, and ignores ---> kills that which appears to 'threaten' such a 'sinful egoic structure'.

When you use the word ego I dismiss it as a childish state so you're not getting through to me using that concept. But yes, I don't quite understand how free will is bound in pride.
.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 3:06 am

jerlands
Suffering is the search for an answer to survival. It is encumbered by all of creation and thus given the world. The Biblical story however subjects Adam and Eve to the notions of good and evil, philosophical concepts that separate man from beast. Adam and Eve were given a choice by "God" and they took accepted that choice as their destiny to be an active participant in a solution (as some might interpret the story.)

But this is a bible story. My problem with thinking like this is that it covers up what is genuinely important with narrative. You could have told me any one of a number of scriptural tales, but they would each possess an assumption that cannot be clearly defended. Why not allow yourself to think philosophically, put aside stories, and move to what underlies them? E.g., this Adam and Eve story from Genesis vis a vis good and evil: you talk of choice, but can you make sense of this term? When you talk about god, what do you mean without dogmatic reference to an ancient book?
I am not trying to be insulting, it's just that I believe people, especially people like you who, like myself, are inclined to interpret the world as a deeply meaningful place, need to look more deeply into your religious beliefs.

The story of Adam and Eve wasn't so much about good and evil as it was about choice and it's actually a complicated story. It involves the two tellings of creation and as there are different personas of "God" (different names) in each version so are there different personas for Adam. What Adam and Eve are in one persona is the first man/woman and another persona the first of "God's" people. As the first of "God's" people they were created by "God" to bring good into the world (order) but "God" gave them free will and so he left them with the choice, they could assume suffering and burden themselves with this task or not. That choice was what set them on their path willingly, which was the only true way.

God is the creative force or reason in creation. It was his will that creation occurred. It's explained as "God" contracting to allow the other to enter. Our science suggests a couple theories. The Big Bang and the Big Bounce. The Big Bang begins in contraction from which a violent expansion brought forth a hot plasma that cooled. The Big Bounce suggests the Universe expands and contracts regularly. How does suffering and redemption fit in to our science? Suffering is the struggle to survive. Redemption might be thought of as try try try and finally succeed but it doesn't seem to happen without effort and correction.

Notions of Suffering and Redemption are religious philosophical concepts so it's hard to avoid some reference be it from Ancient Egypt, the Bible, Laozi, Buddha, those seem to be the source of great thought on the matter. As for choice, this is the determination made through judgement, a logical process of measuring something on the right and comparing it with something on the left. Similar to a balance beam scale but choice doesn't necessitate we make a correction or select the heaviest or lightest, it simply is the selection from the options.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 3:06 am

Actually all creation has notions of right and wrong as demonstrated by certain form of behavior such as "pack."

Pray, elaborate.

A pack of dogs, a herd of elephant, a school of fish all have an understanding of their place in the structure, how the structure behaves, how to defend the structure and when you misbehave in the structure. This type of behavior indicates an understanding of good/bad, right/wrong.
.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 3:37 pm

Jerlands wrote: Imagination is simply placing one foot in front of the other before you do it. It's the mind following some progression through the minds medium which is thought and which we comprehend through reason.

That's a very limited concept of imagination. I guess you never listened to a song "Imagine" by a guy named John Lennon.

imagination (n.)
"faculty of the mind which forms and manipulates images," mid-14c., ymaginacion, from Old French imaginacion "concept, mental picture; hallucination," from Latin imaginationem (nominative imaginatio) "imagination, a fancy," noun of action from past participle stem of imaginari "to form an image of, represent"), from imago "an image, a likeness," from stem of imitari "to copy, imitate" (from PIE root *aim- "to copy")
.

jerlands wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 7:43 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 16th, 2018, 3:37 pm

That's a very limited concept of imagination. I guess you never listened to a song "Imagine" by a guy named John Lennon.

imagination (n.)
"faculty of the mind which forms and manipulates images," mid-14c., ymaginacion, from Old French imaginacion "concept, mental picture; hallucination," from Latin imaginationem (nominative imaginatio) "imagination, a fancy," noun of action from past participle stem of imaginari "to form an image of, represent"), from imago "an image, a likeness," from stem of imitari "to copy, imitate" (from PIE root *aim- "to copy")
.

And so???

jerlands
Notions of Suffering and Redemption are religious philosophical concepts so it's hard to avoid some reference be it from Ancient Egypt, the Bible, Laozi, Buddha, those seem to be the source of great thought on the matter.

I probably can't convince you that you already spoil the inquiry when you assume references to ancient Egypt, etc., are essential to a discussion about suffering and redemption. But one day you might ask yourself, how would a philosopher (and not a medieval philosopher, but an interesting one, like Buber, Kierkegaard, Otto, Levinas, Husserl, and so on) provide insight into the religious condition of humanity?

Ancient thinking, events, interpretations: these are things we need to get beyond, and once we have done this, and we have put some serious analytical works under our belt, then we can revisit them and they take on new significance. But without this you find yourself up the same tree as the howling evangelical Baptist minister or the dogmatic Catholic. Religious people, and I am among them, evolve through philosophy; they get past so called "grand narratives" and into the real world, and by real I mean out of narrative, what is there before you when story telling is dropped (as best it can be dropped).

Hereandnow wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 11:14 am

jerlands
Notions of Suffering and Redemption are religious philosophical concepts so it's hard to avoid some reference be it from Ancient Egypt, the Bible, Laozi, Buddha, those seem to be the source of great thought on the matter.

I probably can't convince you that you already spoil the inquiry when you assume references to ancient Egypt, etc., are essential to a discussion about suffering and redemption. But one day you might ask yourself, how would a philosopher (and not a medieval philosopher, but an interesting one, like Buber, Kierkegaard, Otto, Levinas, Husserl, and so on) provide insight into the religious condition of humanity?

Ancient thinking, events, interpretations: these are things we need to get beyond, and once we have done this, and we have put some serious analytical works under our belt, then we can revisit them and they take on new significance. But without this you find yourself up the same tree as the howling evangelical Baptist minister or the dogmatic Catholic. Religious people, and I am among them, evolve through philosophy; they get past so called "grand narratives" and into the real world, and by real I mean out of narrative, what is there before you when story telling is dropped (as best it can be dropped).

First.. I never said anything about anything being essential. I simply said it was hard to avoid. Secondly, take the lead into this realm you want to venture. I don't see it.

jerlands wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 4:07 am

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 2:35 am
Not at all.
I'd be happy to show the logical support for the comment, if you like.
I already have pretty much spelled out why and what.
I can take it more slowly if you are really interested in understanding.
A little thought makes the truth of my statement rather obvious, unless one believes in free-will/choice (is bound and blind in Pride), at which point one defends it (free-will/choice) with everything, and ignores ---> kills that which appears to 'threaten' such a 'sinful egoic structure'.

When you use the word ego I dismiss it as a childish state so you're not getting through to me using that concept.

I have already clearly defined ego.
Ignore it as you will.
At least I define the terms that I use (when definable), so they become available for critical logical examination and, if possible, refutation.

But yes, I don't quite understand how free will is bound in pride.
.

For there to be 'free-will/choice' in actuality, you must have the power to change a moment if existence to bend to your 'Will'.
To 'change' a moment of existence requires the 'changing' of the entirety of existence, the entire Universe, ever! All things are, of course, at least, interrelated, interdependent.
Did you not read ny short offering on 'free-will/choice'? I explained three ways from Sunday! How is repeating myself going to make any difference if you do not read and understand what I write.
To have and exercise 'free-will/choice', you must CREATE something according to your 'Will'.

But first, you must JUDGE what is/exists/is Created as 'insufficient' for your desires.
In doing so, in your terms, you would be JUDGING God's Creation and finding it wanting!!
Then, you have a 'better idea' to implement (bypassing mere suggestion).
Outvoting God = Superior to God!

And you are telling me that you cannot see how this might relate to Pride?
Really?
If that doesn't give the ego some food for denial, nothing will.
Perhaps the 'seed' denied today will blossom forth at some other, more fertile, moment; a day, year, decade... all is well. *__-

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm

jerlands wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 4:07 am
When you use the word ego I dismiss it as a childish state so you're not getting through to me using that concept.

I have already clearly defined ego.
Ignore it as you will.
At least I define the terms that I use (when definable), so they become available for critical logical examination and, if possible, refutation.

Well I missed the definition so if you would kindly post that again. Is the ego simply self or is the ego a part of self?

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm

But yes, I don't quite understand how free will is bound in pride.
.

For there to be 'free-will/choice' in actuality, you must have the power to change a moment if existence to bend to your 'Will'.

So that I'm not mistaken, that should read "change a moment in existence?".

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm To 'change' a moment of existence requires the 'changing' of the entirety of existence, the entire Universe, ever! All things are, of course, at least, interrelated, interdependent.

If someone robs from another does that change existence and do people have the choice in commiting acts like robbery or murder?

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm Did you not read ny short offering on 'free-will/choice'? I explained three ways from Sunday! How is repeating myself going to make any difference if you do not read and understand what I write.
To have and exercise 'free-will/choice', you must CREATE something according to your 'Will'.

Would you provide an example of what you're declaring.

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm But first, you must JUDGE what is/exists/is Created as 'insufficient' for your desires.
In doing so, in your terms, you would be JUDGING God's Creation and finding it wanting!!
Then, you have a 'better idea' to implement (bypassing mere suggestion).
Outvoting God = Superior to God!

You have a totally different "God" than I. My "God" game me free-will so I might develop for in choice we learn.

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm And you are telling me that you cannot see how this might relate to Pride?
Really?
If that doesn't give the ego some food for denial, nothing will.
Perhaps the 'seed' denied today will blossom forth at some other, more fertile, moment; a day, year, decade... all is well. *__-

Yes, I'm telling you I don't see how free-will is bound to pride. Pride might be thought of as excessive self esteem but I have also the option to interpret pride as satisfaction in achievement so what is your definition.

jerlands wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 11:57 pm

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm
I have already clearly defined ego.
Ignore it as you will.
At least I define the terms that I use (when definable), so they become available for critical logical examination and, if possible, refutation.

Well I missed the definition so if you would kindly post that again. Is the ego simply self or is the ego a part of self?

Everything that you think and feel (feelings are thoughts), know, to be who and what you are, your complete identity as you know you/it, exists in/as 'thought'!
Ego is identity, thus, ego exists in/as 'thought'. Schizophrenic duality.
Being 'conceited' is ego related, but the definition of ego is not conceit, but includes it.

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm
For there to be 'free-will/choice' in actuality, you must have the power to change a moment if existence to bend to your 'Will'.

So that I'm not mistaken, that should read "change a moment in existence?".

Of course. Thank you for even noticing! *__-

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm To 'change' a moment of existence requires the 'changing' of the entirety of existence, the entire Universe, ever! All things are, of course, at least, interrelated, interdependent.

If someone robs from another does that change existence

Nope, the act of the moment IS existence. Could never be 'otherwise'.
Have you ever seen the movie "Slaughterhouse Five; a children's crusade" (or the book) by Kurt Vonnegut? It gives a fair example of this.
They mention that any moment "always was, is, and will be".

and do people have the choice in commiting acts like robbery or murder?

When I mentioned that who and what we are manifests at each and every moment, that means that in a moment finds us with our murderer nature in the chute, that is what the moment will manifest.
Another moment might find us with healer 'in the chute', and that is what manifests.
There is no 'choice' in the matter. There are "feelings/thoughts" of choices and, thus the theory of 'free-will' based on those (schizophrenic) thoughts/feelings.

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm To have and exercise 'free-will/choice', you must CREATE something according to your 'Will[/color]'.

Would you provide an example of what you're declaring.

I'm not sure how to respond. I'm saying that something is not philosophically/scientifically possible, and you are asking for an example of that impossibility.
I cannot offer an example of the impossible. I did show how the philosophically/scientifically impossible can, anyway, exist; in 'thought/feelings'.
If the Universe declares that I do not have a comfortable chair in which to plant me bum, at any moment, for me to 'change' that moment, or any moment, is not possible. All moments of existence already exist, AS IS! (God never 'changes'!) To imagine that by some magic 'will' we can alter Reality is no more than vain Pride. It falls for the 'appearance' of 'motion and time'! Falls for a mirage that we can actually 'do' anything other than perceive the moment! (Schizophrenia... enia... enia...)
"Take no heed (for the schizophrenic illusion)..." - bible

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm But first, you must JUDGE what is/exists/is Created as 'insufficient' for your desires.
In doing so, in your terms, you would be JUDGING God's Creation and finding it wanting!!
Then, you have a 'better idea' to implement (bypassing mere suggestion).
Outvoting God = Superior to God!

You have a totally different "God" than I. My "God" game me free-will so I might develop for in choice we learn.

Same God, different Perspectives. *__-
Rather like this;
imagine a simple 'line', a 'string of points' heading off to the left and right.
A 'line'. Okay?
We can see the entire line, every point along it (theoretically), from end to end.
What are we looking at? A line.
Now, lets turn that line 90 degrees so that we are seeing only a single point at our end facing us.
Now, what are we looking at? A point.
Talk a circle and turn it on it's side and what are we looking at? A line.
Take a triangle and lay it down. Another 'line'.
And people, being what they are, will argue and kill each other over whether what appears to be a 'line' is a 'line' or a 'circle' or a 'triangle'!
Some might insist that they are all separate things.
Welcome to the schizophrenic world of religion.
What "is" it, exactly? All of those Perspectives, and so much more! But it is un-perceivable without all these Perspectives giving their 'shortsighted/truncated' (dualistic) input to the One Universal Consciousness/Self!

Namelesss wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 10:48 pm And you are telling me that you cannot see how this might relate to Pride?
Really?
If that doesn't give the ego some food for denial, nothing will.
Perhaps the 'seed' denied today will blossom forth at some other, more fertile, moment; a day, year, decade... all is well. *__-

Yes, I'm telling you I don't see how free-will is bound to pride.

Perhaps the 'seed' that remains dormant today will blossom forth at some other, more fertile, moment; a day, year, decade... all is well. *__-

Pride might be thought of as excessive self esteem

Then comes the emotional ego validating determination of the meaning of 'excessive'.
My experience is that such terminology is most, vastly, often relating to "the other guy" and never to yourself!
Even Trump would never say that about himself, even though he is the poster boy to the world of 'excessive self esteem'!
So that would be a rather self justifying definition, facile for the ego's denials.

but I have also the option

Or so it might appear...

to interpret pride as satisfaction in achievement so what is your definition.

I understand the common definitions, which are numerous.
Considering my experience/Knowledge, I'm going to stick with my definition/interpretation;
Pride is judgment; the constant munching of the Fruit of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." - bible
"Pride is the belief in free-will/choice'." - n