|
OwlFancier posted:Much as I dislike Dawkins that is more based on him being the most unpleasantly smarmy gently caress on the face of the earth, rather than him being actually wrong about stuff. I wasnt completely serious. BrandorKP posted:I've already turned it on myself: quote:Right because language cannot escape the issue of universals. The "transcendental realm", the spiritual, is a fundamentally related to our use of symbols, ideas, and language and what we consider ideal.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Brandor why should we explain things in mystical terms rather than concrete ones?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Brandor why should we explain things in mystical terms rather than concrete ones? Couldn't you say that, given the unsupported faith we put in our ability to perceive the physical world (if it exists), that all concrete explanations are in fact mystical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Brandor why should we explain things in mystical terms rather than concrete ones? In other news: Is being bi-polar really just demon possession? I mean, if we're going to throw out modern psychology and cognitive studies, might as well go all the way. Schizophrenia is just god/devil/demons/angels speaking to people, and people who kill their children because god told them so obviously need a pardon right away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I wasnt completely serious. I wouldn't blame you if you were, for an allegedly intelligent person, Dawkins displays an incredible lack of awareness of or concern for effective interpersonal communication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Brandor why should we explain things in mystical terms rather than concrete ones? VitalSigns posted:Couldn't you say that, given the unsupported faith we put in our ability to perceive the physical world (if it exists), that all concrete explanations are in fact mystical? CommieGIR posted:In other news: Is being bi-polar really just demon possession? I mean, if we're going to throw out modern psychology and cognitive studies, might as well go all the way. Stay tuned for these exact answers, but ten times longer for no reason!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wouldn't blame you if you were, for an allegedly intelligent person, Dawkins displays an incredible lack of awareness of or concern for effective interpersonal communication. Seriously, Dawkins is a jerk. Hitchens is a jerk as well, but has the 'cool guy' persona going for him. If you are reading a Dawkins book that is not about Evolutionary Biology, put it down. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Stay tuned for This is the much more likely outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In other news: Is being bi-polar really just demon possession? I mean, if we're going to throw out modern psychology and cognitive studies, might as well go all the way. I dunno, I don't think philosophy and psychology (psychiatry) have the same goals re. cognitive functions so they can coexist. We can value both Heidegger and cognitive psychology because the issues they want to answer are dissimilar. Similarly if somebody wants to use the concept of daimons to explain ethical questions, that doesn't mean he subscribes to exorcism as psychiatric practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is the much more likely outcome. Don't go around predicting your own posts, it's uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
if you believe demons arent real then angels arent real then satan isnt real then jesus isnt real (jesus is an angel too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I dunno, I don't think philosophy and psychology (psychiatry) have the same goals re. cognitive functions so they can coexist. We can value both Heidegger and cognitive psychology because the issues they want to answer are dissimilar. Similarly if somebody wants to use the concept of daimons to explain ethical questions, that doesn't mean he subscribes to exorcism as psychiatric practice. But considering a large swath of mental illness was explained away as possession and their victims treated as such, I am going to approach Brandor's arguments with extreme disgust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:55
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I dunno, I don't think philosophy and psychology (psychiatry) have the same goals re. cognitive functions so they can coexist. We can value both Heidegger and cognitive psychology because the issues they want to answer are dissimilar. Similarly if somebody wants to use the concept of daimons to explain ethical questions, that doesn't mean he subscribes to exorcism as psychiatric practice. I think people like Dennett do try to wed neuroscience problems with problems of epistemology though - if anything, that's one of their major projects. I think the real problem is just that Brandor thinks he is using the term daimon in an appropriately contextual way, and is not - although the term can to some extent be used in that way IN SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE SOURCES he highlights (that is to say, it is more appropriate in the classical Greek texts than the Christian ones, notwithstanding Christianity's debt to ancient Greece). Although I think he is primarily trying to use the term in a sort of Socratic sense. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:if you believe demons arent real then angels arent real then satan isnt real then jesus isnt real (jesus is an angel too). Wait where do the Illuminati fit into this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Wait where do the Illuminati fit into this?  The same place they fit into everything!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Wait where do the Illuminati fit into this? lol @ conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:
poo poo Dan Brown was right! ...my faith.....shattered.......
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I dunno, I don't think philosophy and psychology (psychiatry) have the same goals re. cognitive functions so they can coexist. We can value both Heidegger and cognitive psychology because the issues they want to answer are dissimilar. Similarly if somebody wants to use the concept of daimons to explain ethical questions, that doesn't mean he subscribes to exorcism as psychiatric practice. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
10/10 At least it wasn't demons.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are there any other singular words that are somehow also double-negatives? inflammable means the same thing as flammable
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Torka posted:inflammable means the same thing as flammable What a country!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Guess what's hiding in both a lot of modern cognitive psychology and Heidegger? Buddha was the illuminati all along!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Buddha was the illuminati all along! Well, at least its a happy fat guy with a fairly humanitarian worldview...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Torka posted:inflammable means the same thing as flammable Also to seed, to de-seed; to bone, to de-bone; etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Torka posted:inflammable means the same thing as flammable VitalSigns posted:Also to seed, to de-seed; to bone, to de-bone; etc Those aren't really double negatives in the same sense as irregardless, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
But inflame isn't the same as extinguish.Nessus posted:Guess what's hiding in both a lot of modern cognitive psychology and Heidegger? And by hiding you mean sitting somewhere in the corner, making a timid noise from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Kyrie mode: Heidegger's success in Asia returns us to the recently discussed topic of Christianity basing the validity of its faith on persuasiveness. By persuading Asian scholars to value his Christian roots over their own Buddhist and Daoist tradition, Heidegger has lived up to this claim and has proven that Christianity is superior to other religions due to its philosophical expedience that obsoletes other philosophical systems. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:But inflame isn't the same as extinguish. But it could be interpreted as "unable to catch on fire" the same as indestructible means "unable to be destroyed" or inedible means "unable to be eaten."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
What is up with the upswing of Christianity in Asia anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What is up with the upswing of Christianity in Asia anyway? *shrugs* Mysticism? The Asians are into mystical stuff, why not this one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What is up with the upswing of Christianity in Asia anyway? Capitalism and/or American influence, I'd suspect. But I repeat myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Am I missing a joke?  That's a picture of Bo Dai, not the Buddha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What is up with the upswing of Christianity in Asia anyway? I know in Korea, Christian Koreans were some of the most prominent figures in the independence/resistance movement against Japanese colonialism but as for China and other Asian nations  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Christianity and Christian missionaries are still kind of a strange oddity in Japan, regarded with mostly bemusement. Then again, Japan was always extremely resilient to missionaries (as well as incredibly hostile to their entry, as they were rightly perceived to be the forerunners of colonialism). Christian style weddings are getting more popular though, because of the almighty power of Hollywood.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Right because language cannot escape the issue of universals. The "transcendental realm", the spiritual, is a fundamentally related to our use of symbols, ideas, and language and what we consider ideal. Unlike some other people in this thread, I am sufficiently versed in the pretentious to parse this sentence. And... nah, you don't need "universals". Words point to (possibly blurry edged) categories in your mind that are close enough to the ones in other people's that you're usually understood. You have roughly the same categories because you've got roughly the same brain as other people, live in the same world and spend a lot of time talking to other people who will correct you/ act confused if you're too far off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
In China there seems to have been a decline of Christianity, actually. At its peak during the Republican era, Christianity claimed millions of converts on both the Catholic and Protestant / Evangelical side, with Catholics, mostly pioneered by French missionaries, focusing on schools in rural areas and Protestants on urban population. AFAIK the Christian population has yet to recover to its pre-1940s volume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:18
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In China there seems to have been a decline of Christianity, actually. At its peak during the Republican era, Christianity claimed millions of converts on both the Catholic and Protestant / Evangelical side, with Catholics, mostly pioneered by French missionaries, focusing on schools in rural areas and Protestants on urban population. AFAIK the Christian population has yet to recover to its pre-1940s volume. It's almost as if something happened after WW2, some kind of social force came to power that was hostile to Christianity.  Look at the pre-post in most USSR countries. Except in countries where religion was at the forefront of resistance, Christianity didn't do amazingly well, especially in the more cosmopolitan ones like the Czech republic. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Unlike some other people in this thread, I am sufficiently versed in the pretentious to parse this sentence. And... nah, you don't need "universals". This is problematic as if you base the idea of intersubjective creation of reality on eidetic reduction that forms thoughts of essences, there's a still unresolved conflict of whether these eidetic reductions are comparable with universals. Husserl, for instance, was unwilling to claim that universals were the same as products of human phenomenologic reductions; intersubjectively shared ideas are essences that point to objects without being objects, while universals, if I remember correctly, should be objects in themselves rather than merely pointing to them or being in some other relation to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's almost as if something happened after WW2, some kind of social force came to power that was hostile to Christianity. Sure, but it's strange to talk about surge of Christianity in countries that have been oscillating between strong Christian presence and no presence at all for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:04 |
|
steinrokkan posted:Sure, but it's strange to talk about surge of Christianity in countries that have been oscillating between strong Christian presence and no presence at all for centuries. It's not strange at all - in most cases there will be a proximate cause. It's not just a 'natural cycle' or something. Also, please tell me you are loving with that guy with the Husserl post.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:37
|
|