Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

thask, we both agree the self deceives. Can we agree this is a reasonable belief and an objective truth in the spiritual life?

Of the subjects that concern me nothing is known, since there exists nothing in writing about them, nor will there ever exist anything in the future. People who write about such things know nothing; they do not even know themselves. For there is no way of putting these things in words like other things that one can learn. Hence, no one who possesses the true faculty of thinking (nous), and therefore knows the weakness of words, will ever risk framing these thoughts in discourse, let alone fix them in so inflexible a form as that of written letters

. (paraphrase by Hannah Arendt)

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

thask, we both agree the self deceives. Can we agree this is a reasonable belief and an objective truth in the spiritual life?

. (paraphrase by Hannah Arendt)

The only thing I can say with certainty is that I am capable of deceiving myself for a great length of time...about a variety of things. But, the minute I say that everyone else suffers from the same affliction too...someone else is liable to jump in and say that he/she does not suffer such bouts with self-deception. So...yes. You and I can agree that the "self deceives"...because we've seen it in our own experience. But is this really an "objective truth"? What do we say to the person who claims that he has experienced no such thing?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only thing that I can say with certainty is that I am capable of deceiving myself for a great length of time...about a variety of things. But, the minute I say that everyone else suffers from the same affliction too...someone else is liable to jump in and say that he/she does not suffer such bouts with self-deception. So...yes. You and I can agree that the "self deceives"...because we've seen it in our own experience. But is this really an "objective truth"? What do we say to the person who claims that he has experienced no such thing?

I'm not sure what you mean by "deceiving myself." That would seem to indicate a non-conscious portion of your mind is manipulating the beliefs of the conscious portion. Or portions. That presents an interesting situation, because the only way one part could deceive another part is if the deceived part was unaware of what the deceiving part was up to. That presents an even more interesting view of consciousness as (on one hand) a series of discrete states with multiple portions serially "awake", or (on the other hand) the ability of one part to function outside the awareness of the other part. Or parts.

Easy to say, but way more difficult to conceptualize how such a thing is possible. Perhaps in understanding that conceptualization, understanding of the "whys" and "hows" will become easier.

If that seems obscure, consider (whatever term is favored for "positive thinking" or "visualization" or various other labels for the same process) "self-hypnosis." How--precisely--does one "trick one's own mind" into believing some whatever blah blah ("I am a winner!"). There is no trickery. There is no deception. It is one part playing a game with another part.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only thing I can say with certainty is that I am capable of deceiving myself for a great length of time...about a variety of things. But, the minute I say that everyone else suffers from the same affliction too...someone else is liable to jump in and say that he/she does not suffer such bouts with self-deception. So...yes. You and I can agree that the "self deceives"...because we've seen it in our own experience. But is this really an "objective truth"? What do we say to the person who claims that he has experienced no such thing?

Just because a person believes something does not mean their belief is justifiable or correct. People can hold all types of beliefs, but holding a certain belief does a correct belief.

Hawking believes due to science philosophy is dead. Just because Hawking holds this belief does not make it true objectively that philosophy is dead. The test is what is reasonable and not someone's contrary opinion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Hawking believes due to science philosophy is dead. Just because Hawking holds this belief does not make it true objectively that philosophy is dead. The test is what is reasonable and not someone's contrary opinion.

Speaking philosophically, I agree with that.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But WHY do these people have to be shown to exist outside the bible? The various DIFFERENT writers of the books of the bible bear witness to each others' existence! There is no circular reasoning involved! Different writers wrote the books of the bible! What part of this don't you get? How can there be circular reasoning among different writers?

The reruns of the show are beginning again. Not worth grabbing the Some shows should

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Just because a person believes something does not mean their belief is justifiable or correct. People can hold all types of beliefs, but holding a certain belief does a correct belief.

Hawking believes due to science philosophy is dead. Just because Hawking holds this belief does not make it true objectively that philosophy is dead. The test is what is reasonable and not someone's contrary opinion.

Permit me an observation and then carry on, please: Hawking is quite self-deceived because his belief about the demise of philosophy is itself a philosophical belief, not a scientific one! For one to deny the validity of philosophical thought, one must actually philosophize. Therefore, unbeknowst to this self-deceiver, his take on philosophy is self-defeating and most certainly not true objectively or otherwise.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only thing I can say with certainty is that I am capable of deceiving myself for a great length of time...about a variety of things. But, the minute I say that everyone else suffers from the same affliction too...someone else is liable to jump in and say that he/she does not suffer such bouts with self-deception. So...yes. You and I can agree that the "self deceives"...because we've seen it in our own experience. But is this really an "objective truth"? What do we say to the person who claims that he has experienced no such thing?

You tell that person that the denial of own self-deception is proof that he is self-deceived.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Speaking philosophically, I agree with that.

Talk about self-deceived! But I'm not surprised at all that our resident genius cannot see how Hawking's statement is self-contradictory. Truly, there are far, far more blind people in this world than sighted. And the sighted have no one to thank but God Almighty himself for the miracle of sight.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The reruns of the show are beginning again. Not worth grabbing the Some shows should

Circular reasoning, by its nature, is confined to one mind, whereas conspiracy theories involve more than one mind. Maybe Actor will want to postulate the latter next.

[boxcar]

Mr. ShowMe I have a question for you for clarification purposes, please: When you speak of "universal" or "objective" truth, are you speaking of absolute truth?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

The SOURCE is the Aten....the Aten has a TRINITY of 3 aspects, or persons...those being his FULL person at noon, his DYING person at twilight, and his RESURRECTION aspect at dawn....The Aten became the chief metaphor for the ETERNAL God...who daily saves us from the darkness and makes life possible....Jesus is a further abstraction away from the SOURCE.....Ra = Aten....we worship the Aten (Ra) on Atenday....How long will priests rule over your mind with their ancient mythologies...?

Egyptian!

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Just because a person believes something does not mean their belief is justifiable or correct. People can hold all types of beliefs, but holding a certain belief does a correct belief.

Just because Hawking holds this belief does not make it true objectively that philosophy is dead. The test is what is reasonable and not someone's contrary opinion.

On its face this is an assassin statement, tantamount to saying due to science science is dead.What is philosophy?Man's attempt to "actually" understand and to move beyond mythos. For 2400 of philosophy's 2600 year history "scientist" were referred to as natural philosophers.Scientific inquiry is an epistemological approach to knowledge.Surly, Hawking knows all this,so contextualization of his statement would probably clear up what he meant.Anyone read the book?

[Light]

Just a couple of observations from recent discussion.

The concept of "deceiving oneself" is a referral to our inherent "ignorance". One of our jobs to do on this planet while we are here is to transcend our own ignorance through enlightenment.

It doesn't matter if every religion is in fact a "fairy tale". That doesn't change the fact that a very real afterlife may await us. Nor does it change the fact that we are all divine within and can attain that divinity in this lifetime or get closer to it. Another job for us to perform while we are here.

Here is the proof that our "consciousness" or "soul" is independent of our bodies and lives on. Which means there is an afterlife.

My body had to come into existence in order for me to be aware of this life. This means that my consciousness did not have a body before, but existed independently of it. How do I know that? Because there were millions of other people being born before me and "I" still had no existence or awareness with those bodies. My personal consciousness, known as the "I" "waited" for my specific body to be born and inhabit it before it manifested in the physical and "I" became aware of being in this life. Which means my consciousness existed independently without a body before inhabiting mine.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. ShowMe I have a question for you for clarification purposes, please: When you speak of "universal" or "objective" truth, are you speaking of absolute truth?

I am using philosophical definitions. To speak of truth as "absolute" is to say that something is true absolutely, or not relative to something else. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside (not relevant) of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Universality is the notion that universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism (not relative to something else).

I know I am going to regret asking you, but why do you perceive a significant distinction between the terms to justify your above question?