User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Oy, something tells me you are not a scientist, that you have not studied biology, and perhaps, most clearly, that you do not even vaguely understand the theory of evolution.

  2. #12
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    Oy, something tells me you are not a scientist, that you have not studied biology, and perhaps, most clearly, that you do not even vaguely understand the theory of evolution.
    Something tells me it all flew over your head. And you just do not have the analytical merits to understand the way the term evolution is used here and you're incapable of perceiving this idea outside of the context that has been inculcated upon you in your 8th grade biology class.

    In any case, next time you come here, go straight for the argument or dont post at all.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #13
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Three of my favourite topics, and such a disappointment.

  4. #14
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Three of my favourite topics, and such a disappointment.
    I am not interested in your fancies, either provide ideas/critical feedback or nothing at all. If you want to discuss your likes and dislikes the fluff zone is the place to go.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #15
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Something tells me it all flew over your head. And you just do not have the analytical merits to understand the way the term evolution is used here and you're incapable of perceiving this idea outside of the context that has been inculcated upon you in your 8th grade biology class.
    Are you trying to provoke or discourage? Neither is very useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    As Carl Jung has pointed out, very often in our studies of philosophy, science and theology, we find more evidence for how our minds work rather than for how the world itself works. We project ourselves onto what we see and in effect anthropomorphize all things. To avoid this, we should strive to attain as objective of an understanding of our external environment as possible. An example of such a practice would be when we see rain, we should rely strictly on our objective observations of this phenomenon. We should merely attempt to describe what we see in as objective of terms as possible. We should not associate this with our emotions, or use our personal biases to describe this phenomenon. The Buddhists subscribe to a belief in an impersonal God.
    I think at this point, you have some work to do in convincing us that anthropomorphization is undesirable wholesale. You have great examples to illustrate that it is very bad in some contexts, but inferring from them to the general case takes a step you might want to reinforce with careful arguing. Frankly, I don't think you can do it, but I still want to call attention to it. We may be able to distinguish between two kinds of anthropomorphization. One which is to the individual separate subject (which is surely flawed) and one which is to humans in the plural, that is, humans insofar as humans are bound to a common intersubjective reality. Your task would be to distinguish the intersubjective (and the anthropomorphization which may be entirely valid at this level) from the entirely objective, as the realist envisions it.

    It's easy to take realism for granted, and if you want to skim the surface and write to those who are already persuaded by your realist assumptions, then that's fine. Greater philosophical power, however, cannot be achieved without delving deeper.

    Another thing. Buddhists may believe in an impersonal God, insofar as "personal" is conceived of as relating to the error-prone finite self, but it's not clear that the personal God of the monotheistic faiths, conceives of a different God. Consider that "personal" may here be conceived of as relating to self insofar as the self is NOT error-prone or finite, that is, insofar as humans are capable of a certainty affordable exactly by the dependence of the self on shared human reality. Once again, the distinction is between the ego and ego transcendence. "Personal" need not invoke the ego! If you disagree, you have to make a good case for it! People will all the time attribute things to themselves (like good qualities or virtues) in full awareness that they are not the root of those attributes insofar as they are separate, but insofar as they share a bond to the rest of humanity!
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  6. #16
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antireconciler View Post
    Are you trying to provoke or discourage? Neither is very useful.



    I think at this point, you have some work to do in convincing us that anthropomorphization is undesirable wholesale. You have great examples to illustrate that it is very bad in some contexts, but inferring from them to the general case takes a step you might want to reinforce with careful arguing. Frankly, I don't think you can do it, but I still want to call attention to it. We may be able to distinguish between two kinds of anthropomorphization. One which is to the individual separate subject (which is surely flawed) and one which is to humans in the plural, that is, humans insofar as humans are bound to a common intersubjective reality. Your task would be to distinguish the intersubjective (and the anthropomorphization which may be entirely valid at this level) from the entirely objective, as the realist envisions it.


    Another thing. Buddhists may believe in an impersonal God, insofar as "personal" is conceived of as relating to the error-prone finite self, but it's not clear that the personal God of the monotheistic faiths, conceives of a different God. Consider that "personal" may here be conceived of as relating to self insofar as the self is NOT error-prone or finite, that is, insofar as humans are capable of a certainty affordable exactly by the dependence of the self on shared human reality. Once again, the distinction is between the ego and ego transcendence. "Personal" need not invoke the ego! If you disagree, you have to make a good case for it! People will all the time attribute things to themselves (like good qualities or virtues) in full awareness that they are not the root of those attributes insofar as they are separate, but insofar as they share a bond to the rest of humanity!
    Anthropomorphism is undesirable because it make us project our own character qualities onto matters we observe. As a result we fall short of accurate information. Whether it is bad in the ethical sense of the word is not relevant enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by antireconciler View Post
    Are It's easy to take realism for granted, and if you want to skim the surface and write to those who are already persuaded by your realist assumptions, then that's fine. Greater philosophical power, however, cannot be achieved without delving deeper. !
    It is possible to probe into those deeper issues without commiting error of anthropomorphism. When you see rain, dont associate it with any emotion, like anger or sadness. Just say that you see rain.

    When you think of how God is infinite and all embracing, dont associate it with the human notion of an all embracing and powerful person. Just say infinite.

    I do not see the factor of intersubjective reality which renders anthropomorphism inevitable. Anthropomorphization is a result of us attributing our personal, emotive qualites to objects we observe. We doubtlessly would be able to avoid much of this if we refrained from doing so.


    Quote Originally Posted by antireconciler View Post
    Are It's easy to take realism for granted, and if you want to skim the surface and write to those who are already persuaded by your realist assumptions, then that's fine. Greater philosophical power, however, cannot be achieved without delving deeper. !
    No appeal to mysticism is necessary as we can understand all things within the finite world with our rational faculties. Granted that we have collected the sufficient information and reasoned properly.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #17
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antireconciler View Post
    Are you trying to provoke or discourage? Neither is very useful.
    It's fun though.

    Actually, it's not just fun. Every interchange is revealing on some level, even if only of personal information about one's quarry.

    It is fun though. Well, provoking anyway.
    we fukin won boys

  8. #18
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    SW are you sure you arent an INTJ? *flutters off*

  9. #19
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Is this a recent thread?

    I think the post about God, which is the only one I was able to read in enough detail for a reply, basically rejects the notion of his omnipotence, omniscence and goodness because he is not interventionist or good by a human standard of paternalism.

    I've never understood that since by logic and human reason humans and atheists can see how, even if it where possible, omniscent, omnipotent and goodness in government, or even just parenting, are in conflict. This being the case then why have an expectation of something different from God who has more perfect information than us?

    AC Grayling has made the argument recently that God can not be good by human standards because, provisos for free will and human sourced evil and wickedness aside there are still "acts of God" which cause suffering and death, to this I would counter that God has concern not just for humankind but all creation, science's discovery of hugely interdependent eco-systems just is the tip of the ice berg of the sort of consciousness that a divine architect would, I presume, possess. Its an interesting point though.

    In relation to Mother Theresa, some interesting points, I'm personally not one of the people who has virtually canonised her already, she and the previous Pope I think are venerated too much, they where wonderful people and I believe people of faith but I think people should be more steady about it. I do think its important what was in their hearts and what motivated the actions with from the outside appear compassionately.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's God, Public Morality and Evolution thread:

    SolitaryWalker begins by asking perhaps the biggest question in existence: what is God? He says God by tradition is often seen as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Such extraordinary qualities however put God’s identity as a person into question. He also under his doctrine demands worship over personal achievement, but worse yet choosing the dark path of Satan. SolitaryWalker conceives human beings who show genuine compassion to often be incompetent in logical analysis and objectivity, and that the inner quest to perfect all things would be a heavy burden, like for a being who mastered light to also master darkness. Really though, I conceive it to be possible to achieve a perfect balance between such opposites, should we see things from all angles, reference points, and which from the contrast, we could divine our knowledge. God with all of his supreme knowledge is also commonly depicted as the symbol for supreme power, as infinite greatness is also often equated with a person of sublime power. I agree perfectly with SolitaryWalker on his point of how Carl Jung said that in our philosophical, scientific, and theological studies, we gain more insights into the workings of our minds rather than the workings of the world. We project ourselves onto what we see and in effect anthropomorphize all things. Plato argues the average man must be lied to in order to keep them from falling off the safe path, a tactic I for one would not subscribe to, for not only should the truth be free, but it should also set us free. SolitaryWalker is right in regards to God and the way we see him having been the cause for corruption all throughout human history, how manipulative people have twisted ideas in service of external agendas. SolitaryWalker in regards to God concludes that he is best defined as the primary essence of spirituality, or the other world, and then asks if it is possible for us to know the other world. He follows by asking what was the beginning of the universe, and that if A created B, asking what created A, rendering A incapable for a Creator, assuming that it could not have come from nothing. This may mean it has always existed, without beginning or end. This view of time could be defined as the infinite realm, a view from which all things could be seen.

Similar Threads

  1. Morality and Logic
    By Sunshine in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 02:37 AM
  2. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God"
    By TheLastMohican in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 08-31-2008, 02:27 PM
  3. [NT] xNTP/xNTJ duality, and an issue of degression and evolution
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 05:05 PM
  4. Morals and Political leanings?
    By miss fortune in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 11:04 AM
  5. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO