Pagan morality

[iambiguous]

@Roberts

A type of spiritual or religious humanism is humanistic paganism. Any religion that adopts a human-centered ethical perspective as opposed to a deity-centered ethical perspective is referred to as religious humanism. Instead of being determined by the will of any god or gods, what is good is determined by human experience. Dragon Horoscope 2023

Is this you, Fixed Cross?!! Head still in the stars?

[iambiguous]

From PN:

@Sculptor

Einstein believed in the majesty of the order of the universe. Though he used the word “GOD” he was essentially an atheist to the common versions of god presented here. Like Spinoza he was talking about the geometric structure of reality.
I have studied Spinoza and know that Einstein acknowledges his view point as his own.

Again, the staggering gap between what any of us think we know about the universe – the multiverse? – and all that there possibly is to be known about it. Some will stick God in there…others don’t. Some experience this “spiritually” – whatever that means – and others don’t.

As though along with all the rest of us, Einstein and Spinoza weren’t themselves “infinitesimally insignificant specks of existence”. Yet over and again your scoffing contempt for those able to take that Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God. As though what you think about all of it really is the closest to the “whole truth” we can get going back to the existence of existence itself.

And to the extent that particular Pagans derive their “spirituality” from nature itself and not from a “transcendental” entity “up there” somewhere demanding that you obey His Commandments or burn in Hell, I certainly see clear distinctions.

And, given what I’ve noted from you so far, someone is delusional about God and religion if they don’t think about them exactly as you do. The Satyr Syndrome let’s call it. Whereas my main approach is to accept that others might think about these things differently than I do because the lives that we have lived and the experiences that we have had can be profoundly different in turn.

So, okay, I tell them, what’s left given that other than the extent to which we are actually able to demonstrate what we believe about either God or religion to others?

With Maia there is her “spiritual Self”. Something that she seems in all honesty and sincerity to believe in. But only to the extent she can communicate it to others or to demonstrate it to others in terms of her own value judgments, will the gaps in communication narrow. I still root that in dasein and in the “psychology of objectivism”. But in not being her what can I myself effectively convey to her? All I can do, in respecting her intelligence, is to sustain my attempt to get in closer. Or to just give up and move on to others. And, of late, Maia has not been around. So perhaps she is back to seeing philosophy as she once put it in an email as a “soul-crunching” or “soul crushing” exercise.

@Sculptor

I have no idea what you mean by the phrase " I acknowledge that there is no way that I can demonstrate this to in fact be true given both “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rules”."

Okay, there’s what I believe now about my own existence out in the world around me. But then there’s the gap between what I believe now and all that there actually is to be known about the existence of existence such that the “human condition” itself becomes wholly explicable “inside” it.

As for Rummy’s Rules…

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

…you tell me how our speculations here regarding Pagan morality are not embedded in them.

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous post_id=612859 time=1670517304 user_id=4948

@Sculptor post_id=612592 time=1670368252 user_id=17400

Einstein believed in the majesty of the order of the universe. Though he used the word “GOD” he was essentially an atheist to the common versions of god presented here. Like Spinoza he was talking about the geometric structure of reality.
I have studied Spinoza and know that Einstein acknowledges his view point as his own.

Again, the staggering gap between what any of us think we know about the universe – the multiverse? – and all that there possibly is to be known about it. Some will stick God in there…others don’t. Some experience this “spiritually” – whatever that means – and others don’t.

How is that relevant here?

As though along with all the rest of us, Einstein and Spinoza weren’t themselves “infinitesimally insignificant specks of existence”. Yet over and again your scoffing contempt for those able to take that Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God. As though what you think about all of it really is the closest to the “whole truth” we can get going back to the existence of existence itself.

Spinoza and Einstein studied the universe, Kierkegaard was just a scared little viking looking inwards. He has nothing to say of value unless you share the same sort of angst ridden delusions he did and what to double down on that plunge into the rabbit hole.
I’ll take baruch and albert over Sad Soren anytime.

And to the extent that particular Pagans derive their “spirituality” from nature itself and not from a “transcendental” entity “up there” somewhere demanding that you obey His Commandments or burn in Hell, I certainly see clear distinctions.
…

Indistinguishable from any other delusion. Why that one?
It’s just pure hybris.

@Sculptor post_id=612592 time=1670368252 user_id=17400

I have no idea what you mean by the phrase " I acknowledge that there is no way that I can demonstrate this to in fact be true given both “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rules”."

Okay, there’s what I believe now about my own existence out in the world around me. But then there’s the gap between what I believe now and all that there actually is to be known about the existence of existence such that the “human condition” itself becomes wholly explicable “inside” it.

As for Rummy’s Rules…

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

…you tell me how our speculations here regarding Pagan morality are not embedded in them.

Oh you mean Rumsfeld…
Why not take it a stage further. It might tell you something.

Zizeck completely the symmetry and talks about unknown knowns.

Those are the unrealised and unspoken endemic assumptions that guide us.
Your problem is that you have never really unpacked the assumption that the universe has to have a god, or spiritual component.
You have failed to question your unspoken assumption that “why we are here” has to have an answer - it does not.
Yout are labouring under the mistaken idea that removing god means having to replace him with something. Again it does not.
All these things are unknown knowns, and they are all suggested insidiously by your upbringing but have no merit.
Your problem is a failure to grasp the wider picture, realise your ignorance and that you ignorance has been filled with phantasms.
But you ought to embrace the possibility that there is no basis for these questions at all.
Be content.

[iambiguous]

@Sculptor

Einstein believed in the majesty of the order of the universe. Though he used the word “GOD” he was essentially an atheist to the common versions of god presented here. Like Spinoza he was talking about the geometric structure of reality.
I have studied Spinoza and know that Einstein acknowledges his view point as his own.

Again, the staggering gap between what any of us think we know about the universe – the multiverse? – and all that there possibly is to be known about it. Some will stick God in there…others don’t. Some experience this “spiritually” – whatever that means – and others don’t.

@Sculptor

How is that relevant here?

It’s relevant because all of us are merely speculating about things like God and religion. And it is certainly not inherently or necessarily irrational or delusional to feel a spiritual connection to nature. Some feel one, others don’t. Again, given what can be at times enormous differences between the lives we’ve led, the experiences we’ve had. Or does only your own life, your own experiences count?

Then this part…

As though along with all the rest of us, Einstein and Spinoza weren’t themselves “infinitesimally insignificant specks of existence”. Yet over and again your scoffing contempt for those able to take that Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God. As though what you think about all of it really is the closest to the “whole truth” we can get going back to the existence of existence itself.

@Sculptor

Spinoza and Einstein studied the universe, Kierkegaard was just a scared little viking looking inwards. He has nothing to say of value unless you share the same sort of angst ridden delusions he did and what to double down on that plunge into the rabbit hole.
I’ll take baruch and albert over Sad Soren anytime.

Again, from my frame of mind, this tells us so much more about you than it does the point you make. It’s awash in an “arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian” contempt for those who don’t measure their worth by your own caustic Satyrean-like assumptions. You’re like VT over at PN. Ever and always bringing me back to this with your ilk:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these pompous pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

So, perhaps, someday they might finally confront whatever or whoever turned them into this Satyrean caricature. Something has clearly pissed them off in life. Something that brings them into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that they need to make scapegoats of those they construe to be part of whatever they are outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn’t that be far more fascinating to explore?

Only, unlike with me, in my view, it’s not polemics with you. It’s sheer hubris, swagger, scorn. What’s behind that?

And to the extent that particular Pagans derive their “spirituality” from nature itself and not from a “transcendental” entity “up there” somewhere demanding that you obey His Commandments or burn in Hell, I certainly see clear distinctions.

@Sculptor

Indistinguishable from any other delusion. Why that one?

From my frame of mind this is nothing less than sheer stupidity. Or maybe you are just in a particularly foul mood? To compare the two as though they were interchangeable?

@Sculptor

It’s just pure hybris.

This coming from you!!!

@Sculptor

I have no idea what you mean by the phrase " I acknowledge that there is no way that I can demonstrate this to in fact be true given both “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rules”."

Okay, there’s what I believe now about my own existence out in the world around me. But then there’s the gap between what I believe now and all that there actually is to be known about the existence of existence such that the “human condition” itself becomes wholly explicable “inside” it.

As for Rummy’s Rules…

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

…you tell me how our speculations here regarding Pagan morality are not embedded in them.

@Sculptor

Oh you mean Rumsfeld…
Why not take it a stage further. It might tell you something.

And what might that be? How about this: the unknowns that the human brain itself has not evolved enough yet to even grasp at all.

Then whatever the hell this…

@Sculptor

Zizeck completely the symmetry and talks about unknown knowns.

Those are the unrealised and unspoken endemic assumptions that guide us.

…means.

@Sculptor

Your problem is that you have never really unpacked the assumption that the universe has to have a god, or spiritual component.
You have failed to question your unspoken assumption that “why we are here” has to have an answer - it does not.

You can’t help yourself, can you? A “condition” perhaps? Once again, the assumption I make is that given the gap between “I” and “all there is” going all the way back to a definitive understanding of existence itself, what on earth can “I” possibly know about the ontological – the teleological? – parameters of the “human condition”. You’re the fool here in my view who just sweeps that part under the metaphysical rug. And has actually been able to convince himself that his own contemptuous conclusion here really is the optimal explanation!

Then just more of the bumbling, bombastic same:

@Sculptor

You are labouring under the mistaken idea that removing god means having to replace him with something. Again it does not.
All these things are unknown knowns, and they are all suggested insidiously by your upbringing but have no merit.
Your problem is a failure to grasp the wider picture, realise your ignorance and that you ignorance has been filled with phantasms.
But you ought to embrace the possibility that there is no basis for these questions at all.
Be content.

You really don’t have a clue as to just how ridiculous you come off here, do you?

[b]Note to Satyr:

You explain it to him.[/b]

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

this is all you have on ILP…
A constant display of human idiocy.
Americanism’s byproduct.

[iambiguous]

No, really explain it to him.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Still no definition for Dasien…
How is this cunt a philosopher when she refuses to even define the words she uses?
Are we supposed to discuss a concept each using our own private definitions?
to hat end?
Just to pass the time?
Then why should I adopt her definition, even when I do not know it…and lower myself to her contexts?

On what grounds are we supposed to make compromises, if not moral ones?
If there’s no morality involved in whether or not Mary Land is a promiscuous slut, or cheap whore, or an idiot demanding an abortion to sae her from the consequences of her lifestyle or her stupidity, then why should I pay for her whorish lifestyle and her idiotic mistakes - even if through my taxes and tolerance?
Why am I obliged to pay to protect her and to aid her when she fucks up?
No morality, right?
No god, right?
So why? Why should I take on the burden of her idiocy and/or her whorish ways in a world with no moral codes?

[iambiguous]

Come on, really, what else is there:

Absolutely shameless!

The quintessential philosophical pedant allowing himself to be reduced down to drivel like this. He can’t even rouse himself to go beyond the same repetitious droppings.

Fortunately [for him] the embarrassment is only one month a year. But that it is of his own making!!

How to explain that?

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous

You explain it to him.[/b]

For fuck sake you are such a fucking dickwad.

You are totally incapable of getting your head out of your arsehols for ten minutes to read properly anything that anyone writes.

Why would you expect everyone to just agree with you and suck your dick all the time?

Such sad pathetic narcissism.

Lorikeet is bad but you are the worst contributor on this Forum. You make Lorikeet look reasonable.

What? Are you 90 years old or something? You seem to have lost the ability to think outside your comfort zone.

It’s so fucking bad that you even fail to recognise on occasion when people are agreeing with you.

Seriously you need to fuckk off and consult a psychologist. Maybe you need a brain scan.

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous

Come on, really, what else is there:

That is your problem in a nutshell…

You cannot conceive of anything outside your narrow world view.
Dasein my arse.
Heidegger would be horrified to see you use the term.

[Sculptor]

@iambiguous

This is something that has come to interest me as a result of my discussions with Maia.

Yeah your little wank fantasy.

[iambiguous]

@Sculptor

@iambiguous

You explain it to him.[/b]

For fuck sake you are such a fucking dickwad.

You are totally incapable of getting your head out of your arsehols for ten minutes to read properly anything that anyone writes.

Trust me: when you get this from him and his ilk here it means that in not sharing his own point of view, you haven’t read his point of view “properly”.

Then he just can’t help himself. As with Satyr [his soul-mate here with me] he simply goes berserk with the declamatory insults:

@Sculptor

Why would you expect everyone to just agree with you and suck your dick all the time?

Such sad pathetic narcissism.

Seriously you need to fuckk off and consult a psychologist. Maybe you need a brain scan.

Again, he’ll either address the reason that he “loses it” here time after time or he won’t.

Otherwise, sure, if he is as intent as Satyr clearly is here to make a fool out of himself with me, so be it.

If nothing else it is entertaining. Though, admittedly, I’m not particularly proud of that. Well, most of the time.

[iambiguous]

@Sculptor

@iambiguous

Come on, really, what else is there:

That is your problem in a nutshell…

You cannot conceive of anything outside your narrow world view.
Dasein my arse.
Heidegger would be horrified to see you use the term.

Of course: the spitting and sputtering Sculptor!

Though, on the contrary, over and over and over again, I managed to conceive of many things that were outside of my own point of view:

…I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Objectivism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about existentialism then wrong about objectivism altogether.

How about him? What has he been wrong about?

And, given a particular context in which members here have conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments, anytime Sculptor wants to explore the gap between Heidegger’s intellectual/philosophical contraption Dasein in Being and Time and the manner in which I construe the existential meaning of dasein here…

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

…I challenge – dare – him to start a new thread.

The only stipulation being that the exchange eschew the huffing and puffing bullshit that goes on “here and now” on this thread.

[iambiguous]

@Sculptor

@iambiguous

This is something that has come to interest me as a result of my discussions with Maia.

Yeah your little wank fantasy.

How utterly pathetic is this?!

Reducing the truly substantive exchanges I have had with Maia here down to “wanking”!!

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

All she does is yap on and on…about things she does not comprehend…if she did she could define the terms she uses and explain why she uses them, using her own words.
She’s a a witless git…not gib.
Gabby is special. Her tastes are extra refined.

Want evidence of my positions?
Real life evidence?
There they are.

This is Americanism on display.
This is what nihilism does…it creates the living brain-dead - zombies.
Hungry, needy…individuals that think and act in uniformity, mindless herds.

[iambiguous]

Okay, Sculptor, the challenge is on!

Can you make a bigger fool of yourself here than he does?

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

All she does is yap on and on…about things she does not comprehend…if she did she could define the terms she uses and explain why she uses them, using her own words.
She’s a a witless git…not gib.
Gabby is special. Her tastes are extra refined.

Want evidence of my positions?
Real life evidence?
There they are.

This is Americanism on display.
This is what nihilism does…it creates the living brain-dead - zombies.
Hungry, needy…individuals that think and act in uniformity, mindless herds.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Sculptor

@iambiguous

You explain it to him.[/b]

For fuck sake you are such a fucking dickwad.

You are totally incapable of getting your head out of your arsehols for ten minutes to read properly anything that anyone writes.

Why would you expect everyone to just agree with you and suck your dick all the time?

Such sad pathetic narcissism.

Lorikeet is bad but you are the worst contributor on this Forum. You make Lorikeet look reasonable.

What? Are you 90 years old or something? You seem to have lost the ability to think outside your comfort zone.

It’s so fucking bad that you even fail to recognise on occasion when people are agreeing with you.

Seriously you need to fuckk off and consult a psychologist. Maybe you need a brain scan.

I’d prefer if you didn’t talk this way.
There is a lot of swears and insults circulating between
PolishYouth and Lorikeet/Satyr right now.
I was hoping they would keep that to themselves.
You should know better.

[Urwrongx1000]

You know it’s bad when Sculptor is that triggered by Iamadaisy…

[iambiguous]

Moving beyond the pinheads and the clowns:

ETHICS AND COMMUNITY
Principles of Moral Thought and Action
From the RELIGION LIBRARY site: Paganism

Many variations of the Rede have emerged since its first appearance in the 1960s, some versions subtly re-defining its moral parameters.

Here again this begs the question: if there are many variations are all of them equally reasonable? acceptable? warranted? Is each member of the Wiccan/Pagan community permitted to embody his or her own “moral parameters” regarding interactions in the community that result in conflict pertaining to value judgments?

That’s the part that most intrigues me. The extent to which in a Pagan community, might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise prevails when there are differences of opinions about behaviors either prescribed or proscribed.

One common variant appends “Lest in thy self-defense it be,” modifying the prohibition against harm in the interest of self-protection. The Wiccan community does not have a consensus view on how to interpret the Rede; some see it as a spiritual maxim pertaining only to magic, while others regard it as governing all conduct. For some, the prohibition on harm extends to an unwillingness to engage in military service, while others see no such limitation inherent in the Rede.

You know what’s coming: self-defense, the prohibition of harm, the unwillingness to engage in this or that behavior given what particular context? If “all conduct” what of conflicting goods such as abortion? No harm to the fetus or no harm to the pregnant woman desperate not to be?

And if there is no consensus here in a particular community then who or what decides the fate of the fetus or the pregnant woman?

It’s the part that revolves around a “spiritual” relationship with nature that makes this all so obscure for me. If this is always an individual thing then how can social interactions be sustained at all without one or another irresistible force meeting one or another immovable object: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresisti … ce_paradox

In other words, when it ceases to be a “philosophical paradox” and becomes an actually “human all too human” reality?

Despite its popularity among Wiccans and some other modern Pagans, the Wiccan Rede is hardly universally observed in the Pagan community. Most non-Wiccans regard it as strictly a Wiccan text, and seek other principles for moral guidance. Many adherents of ethnic Pagan revivalist traditions look to the heritage of their chosen culture for guidance. For example, Celtic and Norse pagans advocate a life grounded in virtue as understood in the great myths and legends of northern Europe.

So, basically, Pagans are just like all the rest of us. They live a particular life in a particular historical and cultural and experiential context and from that come to acquire traditions that predispose them to one set of virtues rather than another. They just connect the dots [spiritually] to nature rather than to a god/the God or to ideology or to deontology or to biological imperatives.