mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
To wade into a world of arcane jargon that
over-complicates simple ideas is unappealing.
Yeah, we do it differently in the end.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To wade into a world of arcane jargon that
over-complicates simple ideas is unappealing.
That's a strange phrase.Evidence that the world is material.
Stop talking about it?And BTW I don't believe in the supernatural, so stop that.
It seems that you want to pin down some absolutes.And please explain with evidence what real is as per observation? How does it look? What is its form and shape and so on?
TMI about your doing it "in the end".Yeah, we do it differently in the end.
That's a strange phrase.
What do you mean?
Stop talking about it?
Nah.
You must accept that I will.
It seems that you want to pin down some absolutes.
Regarding the material world, I can't do that.
I favor methods that best describe & deal with the real world.
The results are always subject to new evidence & improved understandings.
I'll wager that your use of the term "real"Evidence that the world is real!
I'll wager that your use of the term "real"
should be clearly defined, lest we get into
another argument caused by definitions.
...
I favor methods that best describe & deal with the real world.
...
Then I hereby replace in this thread allNo, you used it as the real world, so the burden is on you to give evidence of that fact that there is a real world
See, that one is on you.
Then I hereby replace in this thread all
uses of the word "real" with "material".
(That'll fix his wagon!)
I'm not sure if there are thousands of recognized philosophers. And it definitely doesn't include just any believer trying to justify belief.I'd call thousands "many".
This includes believers trying to justify belief.
Complex? Arcane language? The philosopher Robert Nozick used Spock (erroneously) as the model in the thought experiment exploring why emotions make life worth living. Friedrich Nietzsche didn't use arcane language, but he used very powerful metaphors (like the lamb and bird of prey) and was long winded in his form as good German authors are. Michel Foucault wrote about sexuality, prisons, hospitals and mental illness in relation to otherness and how society treats the other (the movie Fight Club is heavily saturated in Foucault's philosophy). Peter Singer is clear enough in his wording that he has pissed off a lot of people with his idea that it would better to abort fetuses with severe deformities and illnesses (he's a deep ecologist).I recognize specious rationalization when I see it.
The main job of philosophers is to construct complex
arguments using arcane language to create an edifice
of sophistication. It all tumbles down when they reach
conclusions like "Christians are atheistic" or "God exists".
Ranging from wrong to not even wrong.
Sounds more like you're making excuses based on faulty assumptions of what philosophy is.To wade into a world of arcane jargon that
over-complicates simple ideas is unappealing.
What's to explain about observing a black cat?I see a black cat.
I see a material world.
I can explain black and cat with observation. But I can't see neither material nor world. Can you explain how you do it?
Don't forget that many philosophers are religious.I'm not sure if there are thousands of recognized philosophers. And it definitely doesn't include just any believer trying to justify belief.
I'm dissing their over-complicating the simple.Sounds more like you're making excuses based on faulty assumptions of what philosophy is.
What's to explain about observing a black cat?
False. Aesthetics and the creative will always trump practical methods, evidence and reason. Aesthetics isn't just some adjunct to knowledge. Aesthetics is the most integral part of knowledge and it requires - no, it demands your attention and personal involvement. Like Nietzsche taught us in order to get things done you are absolutely contingent upon the creative will. There would be no science or technology without creativity or aesthetics. Argue otherwise.If you want to accomplish something in the real world,
practical methods, evidence, experimentation, reason,
& theorizing are superior to the alternatives.
Things that don't intrude upon the material world, eg,
supernatural beings, are simply irrelevant.
There are many ways to make observations.So how do you observe the material world?
There are many ways to make observations.
Direct with one's own eyes, touching with one's
own hands, microscopes, telescopes, photography,
etc, etc.
Goodness gracious....you don't just disagree.False.
You seem to be mistakenly presuming that dealingAesthetics and the creative will always trump practical methods, evidence and reason. Aesthetics isn't just some adjunct to knowledge. Aesthetics is the most integral part of knowledge and it requires - no, it demands your attention and personal involvement. Like Nietzsche taught us in order to get things done you are absolutely contingent upon the creative will. There would be no science or technology without creativity or aesthetics. Argue otherwise.
Some guy expressing an opinion.
I did indeed use the words "material" & "world".So do the relevant one for the actual material world for the 2 words, material and world. Not something else.
...
You seem to be mistakenly presuming that dealing
with the material world means eschewing creativity,
aesthetics, emotions, etc.
All those things are part of the material world.
...
I did indeed use the words "material" & "world".
There's something we might agree upon.
Where did Nietzsche say this? He was an art nerd but I'm having difficulty pinpointing where exactly this quote comes from.There would be no science or technology without creativity or aesthetics. Argue otherwise.