It’s extremely generous to say that religion offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos'. There is no shortage of roles for people to occupy and there’s no reason that we can’t find them ourselves. The fact that there are so many divergent meta-narratives indicates that they are myths. — praxis
Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place.
It's like being Sisyphus' water boy, tending kindly to him, convincing yourself your altruism and goodness matters, ignoring the fact that you're all involved in a meaningless struggle that will eventually end with your death and then eventually the destruction of the world. — Hanover
Facts are socially constructed whether about social relations or relations of atoms. — Ennui Elucidator
Our role and responsibility is not enhanced but is instead diminished by claims of cosmic significance.
— Fooloso4
How so? — Wayfarer
You write this as if there is a real universe without sentient beings in it to realise what it is. — Wayfarer
What if part of the significance of sentient beings is to help bring reality into existence? 1 — Wayfarer
So it amounts to acknowledging that no, I can't really demonstrate it 'objectively' even if I have the conviction that it's true. — Wayfarer
This usually then leads to the conclusion that it's only a matter of 'faith', of 'believing without evidence' - because the 'testimony of sages' and the annals of spiritual philosophy are all simply a matter of faith, not scientifically demonstrable. Thereby falling right back into the false dichotomy which characterises modern philosophy, that there is what is scientifically demonstrable and objectively verifiable, and anything else, no matter whether it's noble or profound, must always be a matter of personal conviction.
All I'm saying, is I don't claim to be enlightened. Had enough of your sarcasm and constant jibes, baker. — Wayfarer
It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being. ...
As much as he opposes the traditional German Idealists in their metaphysical elevation of self-consciousness (which he regards as too intellectualistic), Schopenhauer philosophizes within the spirit of this tradition, for he believes that the supreme principle of the universe is likewise apprehensible through introspection, and that we can understand the world as various manifestations of this general principle.
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future. This cosmic self-awareness is being realized in one tiny fragment of the universe — in a few of us human beings. Perhaps it has been realized elsewhere too, through the evolution of conscious living creatures on the planets of other stars. But on this our planet, it has never happened before.
Put some cattle under that hat, a horse under that saddle. — baker
Julian Huxley saw this: — Wayfarer
Wittgenstein apparently had a poor opinion of Schopenhauer: "Schopenhauer has quite a crude mind ... where real depth starts, his comes to an end." — Banno
Dawkins describes the transcendence of unweaving the rainbow. — Banno
At present we have ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing as core aspects of religion. — Banno
What is your scope of interest? — Fooloso4
My theme here is how to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker
Denying those who do not hold to an absolute moral authority a decision making voice?
How so we determine what is the authentic voice of authority?
What authority do those who are to decide have?[
The whole point of authority is that one's subjugation to it is not a matter of one's choice. Authority imposes itself, and it does so totally. Anything that is less than that is not authority, just someone or something with currently more power than oneself. — baker
What bollocks. As if Wittgenstein is the final word. — Wayfarer
So your obsession with authority leads you to the superficial conclusion that religion is whatever someone authority says it is. — Banno
As if the inconsistencies between such authorities could not be the subject of discussion.
I don't see that yours is a significant contribution to the discussion. Prove me wrong, address the article mentioned in the OP, with something non-trivial.
And you gained this insight from your reading, your time here, or in the pew? — Hanover
I will deny entirely you have come close to capturing the essence — Hanover
DO you think I would disagree with that? I'm the one who repeats ad nauseam "Don't look to the meaning, look to the use".Religion is about doing. — Hanover
If you try to define religion as someone who is not religious, from the outside, then your notions of religion will be all over the place, not making a coherent whole.
A, for example, Hindu's idea of religion and a Roman Catholic's idea of religion differ, even significantly, but what they have in common is that their own notion of religion is meaningful to them, respectively. — baker
One could add science to your diagram, a new segment. — Banno
DO you think I would disagree with that? I'm the one who repeats ad nauseam "Don't look to the meaning, look to the use". — Banno
You make it sound like shit when you put it like that. — baker
...as am I. That's the point of following through on the search for a "stipulated anchor". I do not think that such a thing can be found. This thread is about looking to see if I am wrong.I'm trying to counteract your dominance and your externalizing, etic approach. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.