Statiktech, having a good time with your friends ( pleasure ) can increase your life expectancy; people who are less stressed out ( happier ) tend to live longer.
Your only response to the opposite generalization was, “Wow, what a generalization!” —No, it’s a statement of the same generality as the one you made. Read my fucking post. You seem to be responding to someone you made up in your own fucking head.
Not necessarily the church took control of philosophy, possibly thinking it may disengage faith. The publication and dissemination was what became seen as dangerous.
Again, rather well put. But I think this sort of argument might be made applicable to all philosophers who, one way or another, embrace objectivism. They merely substitute Reason [their own] for God [their own]. That way you either share the point they are making in the argument or you are wrong.
You see this a lot with the Kids. But you and I, well, it would seem we are not yet young enough to know everything.
Von, your reasons were hollow. I know why I subscribe to Redbeard and Nietzsche; their philosophies are empowering to me, and accurately describe the nature of reality. I don’t blindly follow them because someone said they were divine revelations or anything of that nature. I inquire, I contemplate, I question, I experiment.
My generality is more in touch with reality - that’s the difference, Von.
Eternal .Not to take reason out of context may be inadequate. The intention may predicate and approximate the general meaning. This was missing in feudal times. Nietzche’s intentions were good. He was not beyond his own intentions.
Stat, I agree with what you said, each individual has a plurality of goals, and sometimes we act without a conscious goal in mind, although the majority of our actions tend to help us survive (in)directly, whether we’re conscious of it or not. Survival is just one of many goals, fame can be another, fortune one more, it depends on the culture/individual, but some are universal like food and sex. Sometimes existence forces us to chose between survival and another goal, as people commit suicide, don’t donate all their sperm to sperm banks, etcetera. Getting drunk can numb pain and loosen one’s inhibitions, but ultimately, it’s a more pro-entropy activity than an anti-entropy activity, and can certainly lead to death via drinking and driving or fighting, not to mention poisoning the liver.
Christianity is empowering to a Christian—that doesn’t make it true. What you said, (“knowledge is power”), is cliche. About the world, it is often enough false; straightforwardly false. —That is, unless you empty the term ‘power’ so devoid of content that it literally applies to everything—but then you’ll have rendered term meaningless. Generalities of that magnitude are often enough total bullshit.
Be careful not to recite lines from the back cover of your favorite authors like gospel. Don’t regurgitate them. When someone states the opposite of you, it’s not a time for a brief incredulous silence, before repeating what you originally, dogmatically said. That would be the behaviour of an idol worshiper.
You must be thinking about some cult in the backwoods of the US.
Blind faith is not a Christian virtue.
Antihuman? Christianity grew from a handful of supporters to become a major religion. Humans must be masochists.
Antiphilosophy and antiscience? It always liked Greek philosophy and science.
Catholicism isn’t Christianity, I’m talking about the early church, the churches that preceded Romanism and Pagan influences. I’m well aware Catholicism cherry picked Plato and Aristotle to make Christianity look good, appear rational, and that they hybridized a few of their doctrines about the soul, about the supernatural, that’re fundamentally antithetical to Christianity.
Hold on, I just remembered the Nag Hammadi Library.
I suppose there was no early church, but early churches, some with more pagan influences than others, many of them with radically differing doctrines.
Still, Christianity was always antithetical to rationalism, whether it was “Gnostic Christianity”, “Christianity”, or Romanism. They used and abused Plato and Aristotle, reason was sublimated to faith.
I assumed that we were talking about the ‘winning’ Christian faction which came out of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). The one which adopted the canonical Gospels written in Greek.
Generally, Christianity (and the Catholic Church specifically) rejects fideism.
The idea that God and spirituality cannot be approached through pure rationality is not uncommon… for example, in Zen Buddhism, it is not possible to reason your way into enlightenment. However, that does not mean that reason and rationality are rejected. They are considered to be limited.
This thread needs to get a lot more civil, fast. Further offences will be met with warnings.
ES: just to be clear, countering arguments with rebuttals such as “you’re just not man enough to take the truth” is arguing in bad faith, and will be treated accordingly.
I never said that the philosophies I subscribe to are true because they empower me. I said that I follow these philosophies because they empower me, and then I wrote that they accurately describe the nature of reality. Don’t conflate the two separate reasons, Von. That’s just unscrupulous.
The word ‘power’ applies to all inter-activity, but there is something it doesn’t apply to: empty space. There is a contrast. So my term is not rendered meaningless.
I noticed that you refined your latest posting - very good. It was a bit vitriolic. Let’s not let emotions cloud our reasoning now.
There is a technical definition of power which applies to empty space. But that’s not what you are talking about… you are talking about power as it applies to human action.
So yeah, vR is right, your use of the term is still meaningless.
No, actually, I’m talking about many forms of power. I’ve stated this numerous times in the past already. But I shall repeat again: anatomic power, political power, intellectual power, atomic power, social power, etc.
Empty space is no-thing ( no-thing-ness ). It is zero, nil. No power.
You don’t reason—you don’t give reasons why you think what you do. You declare what you think, and then repeat it, and repeat it again in different words if need be. Moreover, you don’t address the claims that your posts are supposedly a response to. Read what I wrote, and recognize it.
Are you trolling, Von? It’s starting to seem like it.
I repeat: My first REASON for subscribing to Redbeard and Nietzsche is because it is practical in my everyday life, it empowers me - gives me an edge over my competitors.
My second REASON: the philosophies accurately describe the nature of reality, they are in accord with blatant phenomena in the external world.
Have you learned yet? Treat it like a puzzle if you have to.
