Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[jerlands]

Zeno's Paradox did not prove the illusion, it is the illusion.

Zeno proved, LOGICALLY, how 'motion' is impossible, despite your possible day to day experience in the dream.
His logic has NEVER been successfully refuted.
Some wag heard his theory and thinks he 'refuted it' by walking away.
That is just ignorance, asserting itself.

False. Zeno's paradox is proven an illusion many times. One illusion is matter is infinitely small and another is the runners position in time is dependant upon the the calculation for that moment.

I think what your saying is that all possibilities exist?

I am saying that everything exists!
Calling something a 'possibility' merely demonstrates the lack of Knowledge that 'everything exists'!
Omni- = ALL inclusive! All 'possibilities'! *__-

Wouldn't it be a nightmare to be stuck in one place indefinitely (that's what they say happens when entering a black hole?)

Yes it would; see 'Hellraiser; Inferno'!
The stuff of movies and other imaginative fiction!

The Reality is that each and every moment of the existence of each and every Soul is an absolutely unique Perspective of the One, ALL inclusive, Reality/God!
It is not 'possible' to be 'stuck' at/in/as any particular moment.

If all possibilities exist then why not being stuck in one place for eternity?

Just point out one to me.

Whats the point? Would my words suddenly have more meaning if I named someone that you admired and recognize who repeated them to you??

People question free-will I think as an excuse for their beliefs, actions or maybe their circumstances. I do not find any credence to believe other than free-will. I just don't see it.

Returning to the subject at hand...;
I will repeat that the 'purpose' of the bible is no different than the 'purpose' of all metaphor.

The Bible is more than just any other metaphor simply due to the undeniable impact it has had on western civilization. Whether or not it's a good thing for say me.. that is a had question for me to answer because it has formulated my thinking which I find very hard to escape from.

There is not anything other than Reality to perceive. We can never perceive the Big Picture from any single unique Perspective, but all of Us together, simultaneously inputting Consciousness with Knowledge of Self!
Not THAT'S a Big Bang!

I think you mean to write Now? If so then I don't that would produce a bang as much as an effect similar to the sun rising.
.

[jerlands]

Who was this that assumed bacterial infections and brain disorders were evil spirits? I know middle age thought held this assumption but ancient thought was otherwise. Our conception of Ancient Egyptian medicine is associated with Heka (magic) but the notion of Heka isn't fully understood.


Even if we're shown images of Ancient thought do we really understand it?

Exorcisms were performed in Biblical stories to cure people from illness. This is hardly controversial.

PS. The virgin birth, crusade to decency and resurrection of the Jesus myth were borrowed from Egyptian mythology. It's the expression of human ideals of the time.

Who really knows the truth but I don't see assumption being a solution. As for resurrection, maybe the best we can do is hope we're born into a better world.
.

[Sy Borg]

As I said before, the writers of the Bible made clear what they believed so there is no assumption being made. They really did believe that illnesses were evil spirits.

[Namelesss]

Returning to the subject at hand...;
I will repeat that the 'purpose' of the bible is no different than the 'purpose' of all metaphor.

I forgot to mention that all (writings, rocks, people...) is metaphor, no matter the 'literal intent' of the author, who is also metaphor! *__-

Message du jour;

All words are 'God's Word'!

Recommended (humorous) movie of the moment is;
'It's Gawd!' - starring Tommy Chong
The theology gets screwy, but the message is good.

[jerlands]

As I said before, the writers of the Bible made clear what they believed so there is no assumption being made. They really did believe that illnesses were evil spirits.

It's not true all illness was attributed to evil-spirits but more so in the New Testament certain disorders were. If you think that's not true today I'm not certain you know what you're looking at.

[jerlands]

Returning to the subject at hand...;
I will repeat that the 'purpose' of the bible is no different than the 'purpose' of all metaphor.

I forgot to mention that all (writings, rocks, people...) is metaphor, no matter the 'literal intent' of the author, who is also metaphor! *__-

Message du jour;

All words are 'God's Word'!

Recommended (humorous) movie of the moment is;
'It's Gawd!' - starring Tommy Chong
The theology gets screwy, but the message is good.

Maybe when we reach truth then things will be revealed.
.

[Sy Borg]

As I said before, the writers of the Bible made clear what they believed so there is no assumption being made. They really did believe that illnesses were evil spirits.

It's not true all illness was attributed to evil-spirits but more so in the New Testament certain disorders were. If you think that's not true today I'm not certain you know what you're looking at.

Do you think that credible observers will perform exorcisms on schizophrenics and epileptics?

Seriously, if a person who believed such things today wanted to "teach" you of their conceptions, would you take them seriously?

[jerlands]

It's not true all illness was attributed to evil-spirits but more so in the New Testament certain disorders were. If you think that's not true today I'm not certain you know what you're looking at.

Do you think that credible observers will perform exorcisms on schizophrenics and epileptics?

Seriously, if a person who believed such things today wanted to "teach" you of their conceptions, would you take them seriously?

I'm not involved in any way with exorcism but claims persist. Does that fact mean anything? I was taught the existence of manifest evil and I find people want to give it all sorts of definition and meaning but I have my own.
.

[Sy Borg]

Do you think that credible observers will perform exorcisms on schizophrenics and epileptics?

Seriously, if a person who believed such things today wanted to "teach" you of their conceptions, would you take them seriously?

I'm not involved in any way with exorcism but claims persist. Does that fact mean anything? I was taught the existence of manifest evil and I find people want to give it all sorts of definition and meaning but I have my own.

Yes, I did not think you you personally were keen on exorcism, just pointing out the relative naivete of the ancients. It's not a criticism since, when you think about it, little "clouds" of harmful microbes in your body sure seems like an evil spirit at times! In the case of epileptics, it probably looked that way from the outside.

I think the psychiatrist is simply mistaken. There are no disembodied evil spirits, aside from clouds of germs. If there were, we'd have found them by now. The whole notion of evil is not logical. What we tend to call "evil" is either:

a) entropic natural phenomena
b) disordered and/or deluded people with sadistic and.or destructive tendencies
c) that which is not helpful to the group with which we most strongly identify, be it family, neighbourhood, region, nation, humanity, life or the Earth.

The Hindus understood the basic dynamics of reality - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer/renewer. Without destruction there is stagnation. One might say that existence itself is "evil" because all must be destroyed so that others may live - or we might consider life to be neutral and, luck permitting, what we make of it will create growth and opportunity for some and death and destruction for others, eg. food animals.

What we do is ultimately neither good nor bad - it's all just roles that are assumed both knowingly and, probably more usually, unthinkingly. Generally, the aim of the game seems to be to promote growth in those who are most advanced at the expense of less advanced entities.

The killing or destruction of complex and advanced entities - be they living or assets - is thought to cause unnecessary harm, and could be thought of as "evil" in a sense. However, the word lends a mystique that is undeserved - such behaviour is ultimately simply misguided, idiotic and self-defeating, which are unfortunately relatively primitive hangovers that humanity must transcend, or would at least benefit from doing so.

[jerlands]

I'm not involved in any way with exorcism but claims persist. Does that fact mean anything? I was taught the existence of manifest evil and I find people want to give it all sorts of definition and meaning but I have my own.

Yes, I did not think you you personally were keen on exorcism, just pointing out the relative naivete of the ancients. It's not a criticism since, when you think about it, little "clouds" of harmful microbes in your body sure seems like an evil spirit at times! In the case of epileptics, it probably looked that way from the outside.

I think the psychiatrist is simply mistaken. There are no disembodied evil spirits, aside from clouds of germs. If there were, we'd have found them by now. The whole notion of evil is not logical. What we tend to call "evil" is either:

a) entropic natural phenomena
b) disordered and/or deluded people with sadistic and.or destructive tendencies
c) that which is not helpful to the group with which we most strongly identify, be it family, neighbourhood, region, nation, humanity, life or the Earth.

The Hindus understood the basic dynamics of reality - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer/renewer. Without destruction there is stagnation. One might say that existence itself is "evil" because all must be destroyed so that others may live - or we might consider life to be neutral and, luck permitting, what we make of it will create growth and opportunity for some and death and destruction for others, eg. food animals.

What we do is ultimately neither good nor bad - it's all just roles that are assumed both knowingly and, probably more usually, unthinkingly. Generally, the aim of the game seems to be to promote growth in those who are most advanced at the expense of less advanced entities.

The killing or destruction of complex and advanced entities - be they living or assets - is thought to cause unnecessary harm, and could be thought of as "evil" in a sense. However, the word lends a mystique that is undeserved - such behaviour is ultimately simply misguided, idiotic and self-defeating, which are unfortunately relatively primitive hangovers that humanity must transcend, or would at least benefit from doing so.

Reality is a whole big thing that has many perspectives but I really don't think we get to pick and choose.

The reality of our biology is we have 10X the number of bacterial cells than human cells and 1000X more expressive bacterial DNA. So... does that mean we are human or bacteria walking around having a human experience
.

[Sy Borg]

Reality is a whole big thing that has many perspectives but I really don't think we get to pick and choose.

The reality of our biology is we have 10X the number of bacterial cells than human cells and 1000X more expressive bacterial DNA. So... does that mean we are human or bacteria walking around having a human experience :)

The bacteria are not having a human experience any more than humans are having a biospheric experience :)

Some of those bacterial colonists are parasitic. No one would say they were evil, though (aside from in the aftermath of a nasty dash to the toilet).

[jerlands]

Reality is a whole big thing that has many perspectives but I really don't think we get to pick and choose.

The reality of our biology is we have 10X the number of bacterial cells than human cells and 1000X more expressive bacterial DNA. So... does that mean we are human or bacteria walking around having a human experience

The bacteria are not having a human experience any more than humans are having a biospheric experience

Some of those bacterial colonists are parasitic. No one would say they were evil, though (aside from in the aftermath of a nasty dash to the toilet).

I don't think anything in nature is evil although I'm not saying evil doesn't exist nor that evil might not be able to somehow get into nature. I simply don't know and not knowing leaves me only with whatever I can fathom out of all this. Some think of evil as the 'lie' which makes sense to me.
.

[Sy Borg]

My perspective is that lying, aside from white lies and certain circumstances, is an existential blunder. Liars are naively seeking short term and superficial gains that can only bring them superficiality in the longer term with its associated pains.

[jerlands]

My perspective is that lying, aside from white lies and certain circumstances, is an existential blunder. Liars are naively seeking short term and superficial gains that can only bring them superficiality in the longer term with its associated pains.

"The Lie" I think is something similar to a false identity, part of our struggle to enter into reality.

[Sy Borg]

My perspective is that lying, aside from white lies and certain circumstances, is an existential blunder. Liars are naively seeking short term and superficial gains that can only bring them superficiality in the longer term with its associated pains.

"The Lie" I think is something similar to a false identity, part of our struggle to enter into reality.

How do you mean "enter into reality"?

From my POV, if we follow our developmental line, or the evolutionary line, in the first instance there is complete innocence. Then the capacity to deceive comes, one that all predators must have to survive - especially predators without thick hair, skin, scales or armour - only their ability to be where dangers are not. Then comes the distinctly human capacity to understand why lying and deceit are ultimately self-defeating (again, aside from white lies).