If I recall correctly, Lewis was maintaining that Jesus must be either God or a lunatic based on the assumption that he declared he was God.

According to the Gospels, also as I recall, such a statement is made by Jesus only in the Gospel of John. That's the last of the (orthodox) Gospels. The others, supposedly by Matthew, Mark and Luke, make no mention of any such claim being made by Jesus.

A reasonable person might infer that the Gospel of John was, in this sense, less than accurate. Why wouldn't this be noted in the other, earlier Gospels? Did Matthew, Mark and Luke forget he said he was God? Did they think that the fact he said he was God was unimportant? It's more likely he never said such a thing--that's the weight of the evidence, such as it is.

But Lewis was an apologist, not a reasonable person.

Here's Marcus Tullius Cicero on Julius Caesar:

"When I notice how carefully arranged his hair is and when I watch him adjusting the parting with one finger, I cannot imagine that this man could conceive of such a wicked thing as to destroy the Roman constitution.”

Irony by a master of rhetoric. Excessive self-love is the root of all evil done by we humans

My suspicion is that parents don't actually want their children to learn anything, or be told anything, beyond what the parents already know and believe. The purpose of school is to keep children occupied while they learn some things, true, but not anything by which they may challenge or contest their parents or do or want to do what parents think inappropriate. This view may change as the children grow older and their parents are no longer responsible (or liable) for them, however.

I can't help but put myself in the place of a lawyer for a school district in Florida, asked to render an opinion regarding how a school district may comply with the law and avoid liability. Employee manuals and procedures will have to be revised to prohibit the "encouragement." Signage forbidding, or at least discouraging, discussion of the topics, may be useful in avoiding liability (that has its own problems). What if "discussion" includes electronic communications? Will they have to be monitored? Will discussion of proms and other social events be allowed? Will the use of pronouns be restricted? Will "straight" rulers be banned?

Obviously, the teaching/reading/discussion of certain books will have to be prohibited. Well, most books, in fact.

These are impossible to standardize. — god must be atheist

Yes.

Aside from this, the law does NOT prohibit or inhibit PRIVATE discussions, even when it is not appropriate by age or by developmentia. — god must be atheist

Not expressly, no. I doubt anything a parent or the legislature can do will prevent students from discussing these topics. But what happens if students discuss them in the classroom, privately, and an action is brought nonetheless? Will the teacher's lack of knowledge of the discussion constitute a defense, or will it be expected that a teacher must monitor discussions and prevent them to avoid a finding of "encouragement" of the discussion? Will, or can, a school district prohibit discussion of such topics by students, in order to protect itself from litigation?

It strikes me that the purpose of the law is to make local school boards in progressive districts fearful of discussing homosexuality or transsexualism.. The vagueness might be intentional. Prudence would dictate steering very clear from any such discussion. The likely result though will be defiance by someone and then the courts can figure out the scope of the law. — Hanover

It will inspire fear in teachers and school districts, no doubt about it. I'm hopeful it's vagueness will be its downfall, though.

It looks like the law is meant to encourage frivolous lawsuits. If you have pent up sexual misgivings, seek "injunctive relief". — Metaphysician Undercover

It will certainly encourage lawsuits. The vagueness of the law is such that it isn't clear what would constitute a frivolous action, though.

For all you good people out there, this thread is about extremism. The point of view that the universe only existed last Thursday. So what could be gained from it? It is a challenge to our deep seated beliefs, the ones with absolute certainty. Nothing excites philosophers than a question of grounds for doubt -- why couldn't we just point to the sky, or to the moon as proof? Because paper doubt has that edge that we couldn't quite brush off. We have to deal with it. — Caldwell

Ah, the beguiling, one might even say idealized, view that philosophy consists of the contemplation of those matters which have nothing to do with, but are nonetheless somehow more significant than, actual life. I'm with Pierce on this, and other things: "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."

It has been cited that indeed there is no way to prove whether or not this could be the case — Benj96

Then what's to be gained by considering it?

doorstep of Heidegger’s project. — Joshs

The one bearing the words "Arbeit Macht Frei"? Perhaps that was another doorstep, though, and the project of other Nazis.

Fol de rol!

The summary is fine. I don't mock it.

Well that’s obviously a very broad summary, but I did so to show that it’s not that mysterious. — Xtrix

Not that remarkable, either .

He's saying that since the Greeks, entities have been interpreted in terms of the present (ousia), which is a particular human state (the "present at hand"). That's the thesis. Not particularly difficult, but with interesting implications. — Xtrix

Seems obvious enough. So much for Heidegger, then.

Funny— I’ve offered to explain (and have done so) Heidegger several times. — Xtrix

That's not funny at all.

There’s no code to break. It’s not a mysterious thesis. — Xtrix

It must be me, then. Incapable of understanding him, I must await a revelation, as I've said. Perhaps Heidegger selects us. I may yet be his greatest apostle.

Talk about Heidegger being a Nazi is boring. Don’t like it? Fine— go do something else. — Xtrix

Yes, that someone is a Nazi means less to some of us than others, I know. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Thank you. It looks interesting.

I think his view that we only really think when we encounter problems (broadly defined) is quite true. This is essentially Peirce's position when he criticizes Descartes faux doubt. His rejection of dualism, his support of intelligent inquiry (of which the scientific method is an example) in understanding ourselves and the world, and his position that we humans are living organisms functioning as part of an environment, part of the world not apart from it, all appeal to me.

Do, you have something more important to do with your time on Earth? If so, why are you wasting it on feckless Philosophy? :smile: — Gnomon

I think there's a place for philosophy even in living as we do.

I await a revelation. Like Paul on the road to Damascus.

Not sure what you think of John Dewey. I'm rather fond of him. Another philosopher (Joseph Margolis) asked him to read some of Heidi's work. He did, and reportedly said "Heidegger reads like a Swabian peasant trying to sound like me."

Heidegger presents many interesting insights, but of course they won't be interesting if you are not interested. What could be more obvious than that? If you are not interested in the kinds of things he has to say, then why trouble yourself thinking about him at all? — Janus

His insights on Hitler and National Socialism are indeed very interesting, and very clearly stated. There's no need to decipher what he wrote about them, I must admit.

Our dear Einstein labored in passion in coffee shops, scribbling in note books ad nauseum to develop a theory that seemed to make sense, but science doesn't play with "seem," neither does philosophy. — Garrett Travers

"Albert Einstein was a lady's man
While he was working on his universal plan
He was making out like Charlie Sheen
He was a genius."
--Warren Zevon

Sorry. I just like Zevon, and couldn't help but think of these lines. Couldn't help but type them as well, it seems.

As specifically relates to H, "resolute" (i.e. subjectivist aka "ownmost") "being-towards-death" makes for "authentic Dasein", reminiscent of soldiering (kamikazi-like), that resonates with a Kierkegaardian "knight of faith" fervor rationalized by the theodicy of death at the drum-beating heart of H's SuZ. "Authenticity" – purportedly the highest subjectivist (and historicist) goal – is the hymn of this Absolute (which for H's Dasein is (my) "death") invoked as en-chanting (i.e. "jargoning" Adorno suggests) in lieu of, or over above, public reasoning. :eyes: — 180 Proof

— Ciceronianus

I've been told more than once on this forum when complaining of Heidegger's mysterious pontificating that it's my fault I can't understand him. I would, if I just read enough or really tried to do so in some fashion--I think someone even said I must read the work of all phenomenologists in order to grasp what point. I like to think of this as deciphering the "Heidegger Code."

I'm sure there may be many interesting implications from these works. I'm just wondering if they make any difference to how we live our lives on a day to day basis (which seems, to me, to involve reality).

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3quhly

Batman's right.

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? — Gnomon

Alas, all too often they disregard facts entirely, except perhaps when they face them in day-to-day life and have no option but to acknowledge them by their conduct, at least.

Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. — Gnomon

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? What is it about what they've dug up that would throw our lives into disarray, make any difference to what we do or how or why we do it, lead us to doubt in any practical sense the world of which we're a part and which we and other humans have interacted with, every moment, all our lives? Will we suddenly encounter cats that are both dead and alive, once we know what they've discovered?

Or are they pointing to a universal intrinsic, perhaps immaterial, essence of Reality, more fundamental than sub-atomic particles? — Gnomon

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway.

If violations of the Human Consciousness are occuring within our purview, then perhaps such action is on the table, but the acknowledgement of such an obligation would need to uniformly consensual, and rationally planned to the absolute best of our ability. — Garrett Travers

If everyone would live an Epicurean (or Stoic, I would say) life most if not all our problems would be resolved. But most of us won't. That we should be free to live such a life is clear; that others (not just the government, but other people) should be free to prevent us from living such a life by living however they see fit isn't at all clear, to me. Legal rights which protect our freedom, and ability, to live a tranquil, wise, virtuous life are desirable. Legal rights which allow others to restrict that freedom, or limit or extinguish our ability to live that life, are not.

It's a conundrum I struggle with more and more in these dark times.

I'll have to read the article you cite, but I think Epicureanism like Stoicism teaches that happiness, or the good life, is in large part dependent on a person not acting in a manner which exposes us to harm or disturbance, as reason tells us that we won't achieve tranquility, happiness, and peacefulness in that case. So, we shouldn't engage in conflict with others, or harm them, seek power over others, covet riches, fame and power.

I don't think Epicureans or Stoics were concerned with what a good government would be; in fact, I think that to a sage of either school it ultimately wouldn't matter what a government was or did.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that government must nonetheless be of a particular kind in order for us to achieve the Epicurean (maybe Stoic too) goals or that particular forms of government are more conducive to achievement of those goals than others. I assume those governments would be less intrusive than others in the sense that their citizens wouldn't be compelled to act in a manner contrary to the achievement of tranquility and happiness.

If the goal of government is to promote happiness and tranquility, though--if in other words the goal of government is to facilitate people in following Epicurus' teachings--we have to address the possibility that in that case a government would have to be intrusive enough to prevent citizens from preventing other citizens from achieving Epicurean goals. In other words, compelling citizens to act like Epicureans. That would mean citizens should be prohibited from engaging in conflict with others, acquisition of wealth and power, to the detriment of others, etc. and doing anything which would inhibit the peace and tranquility of their fellow citizens.

You may say that's where the concept of rights comes in to play. It may, within limits. But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights.

Oh, it has most certainly lost a great deal of ground. But the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the copy-cat states it produced, is an Epicurean document for an Epicurean society at base function, — Garrett Travers

The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizens which Revolutionary France created, are based on the concept of human or natural rights. The concept of such "rights" was foreign to both Epicureanism and Stoicism, I think. The Epicurean and the Stoic weren't motivated by a concern for their rights or the rights of others in their quest for tranquility. "Rights" were in large part a fiction (when not sanctioned by law) indulged in during the Enlightenment and since that time.

I think that you're being anachronistic when you call the Constitution an Epicurean document, or the U.S. of the time an Epicurean society.

My understanding is Epicurus and his followers discouraged participation in politics. Yet it seems you emphasize its relation to and impact upon political systems/theories in arguing for its influence.

I have very little quarrel with Epicureanism generally, though I prefer Stoicism, and think I agree with you on the terrible consequences of the suppression of pagan philosophy and religion commencing with the reign of Constantine, but would think the increasing focus on politics we see in Western history indicates that Epicureanism is less influential than you believe.

Is Romanticism the cause of world wars and dreams of Utopia leading to mass murder and tyranny? — Athena

Yes. Yes it is.

Well, it may not be the only cause of such things. It's one of the causes.

I know that terrible things happened before Romanticism raised its self-absorbed, narcissistic, irrational, mystical, emotional head, but assume we refer to what took place after it did so. Unfortunately, it arose at a time when we had at our disposal tools by which we could be enormously more destructive than we had been in the past. So, as it encouraged us to indulge the more grotesque of our whims, dreams and desires, we had the means to inflict the harm caused by that indulgence on more people and did just that, extravagantly (of course).

1. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy et all (serial killers) were all sentenced to death and they were all evil. — Agent Smith

This indicates only that in their cases they were sentenced to death and were evil. It doesn't establish that those sentenced to death are all evil, or that those who are evil are all sentenced to death.

It bears mentioning though that I've heard of judicial sentences of even 300 years (multiple life sentences), an attempt, in my humble opinion, to highlight the severity of an offense. — Agent Smith

It's merely the result of being convicted of more than one crime, for each of which a sentence is imposed. So, you sometimes hear of sentences being served concurrently, and sometimes you hear of them being served consecutively. Consecutive sentences can add up to any number of years, and sometimes have no practical effect.

It did kill the rabbit, the holy handgranade, after it had been lobbed on the count of three. Then the party gaily entered the caverns. — god must be atheist

Thank you. That was a pretty nasty rabbit.

What about the ordinary folks? — baker

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, the records we have relate only to persons of status, wealth and power when it comes to such things.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

How do you know you can't comprehend? Try to, and see what happens.

It's called "holy" before its impact (explosion) you see. I can't remember if it killed that rabbit, though.

What else? — Janus

In that case we may speak of them as being contingently holy, or holy at some point or to some person, sometime, maybe not now but maybe in the future. They become holy, then; they aren't holy themselves. Sometimes, in fact, they aren't holy, if they don't have the requisite impact on the particular reader.

Most people care about what happens after their death. — Andrew4Handel

What happens to them, or to those who live on?

I would assume you are well acquainted with why these questions bother some, whilst Quietism would seem to profess an attitude of (indifference?) if non-care towards them; but, not based on emotive reasonings; however based on rational grounds. — Shawn

I'm aware they bother some, and have an opinion why they do. Quietism, I think, simply recognizes that philosophers haven't and likely will never provide an answer to those questions, if they properly can be called "questions." That doesn't necessarily mean Quietists are indifferent to them, but they understand, e.g., that language has limitations, and some things must be shown as Wittgenstein said.