Monks have been celibate in almost all religions for thousands of years, but they must have just been idiots... — Agustino

Firstly, historically inaccurate. Secondly, circular argument. If your hidden definition of monk is celibate individual then it proves absolutely nothing that monks are celibate. Third, false attribution of motivation. Religious celibacy is not reserved to Gnostic religions nor for the purpose of enlightenment. Fourth, false authority. It is, of course, entirely possible that monks have indeed been idiots in this regard. There are certainly many in the Catholic Church who believe that celibate priests is and always was a truly stupid idea.

And that's before you go on to provide anecdotal evidence masquerading as fact and conjecture as observation. You are, of course, entitled to believe any old tosh you want but in a philosophy forum it requires a much higher standard of justification than this!

Firstly, historically inaccurate. — Barry Etheridge

Any reference for this please?

Secondly, circular argument. — Barry Etheridge

It's not meant to be an argument. I'm not mounting an argument there - merely making a point. You should know better than just to cite a few fallacies. In the wrong context citing a fallacy is proof only of your lack of ability in distinguishing a fact from an argument.

If your hidden definition of monk is celibate individual then it proves absolutely nothing that monks are celibate. — Barry Etheridge

It is a fact that monks have been required to be celibate in almost all religions - including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, etc. . You should read about the requirements for monks perhaps in different religions before talking such nonsense. Really don't shame yourself like this.

Third, false attribution of motivation. Religious celibacy is not reserved to Gnostic religions nor for the purpose of enlightenment. — Barry Etheridge

I never stated this was the only motivation.

Fourth, false authority. It is, of course, entirely possible that monks have indeed been idiots in this regard. There are certainly many in the Catholic Church who believe that celibate priests is and always was a truly stupid idea. — Barry Etheridge

Right monks are idiots to be celibate because it is stupid for priests to be celibate - that makes great sense >:O

Monks aren't priests. The two of them have entirely different functions. Read up on it before coming here with such arrogance. In fact, I agree that priests (or at least most of them) shouldn't be celibate. In fact they probably should marry.

Ad hominem so soon? I'll take that as a win then!

Yeah you can take it as whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that you haven't addressed my points.

1. Almost all religions have required monks to be celibate - do you deny this? Of course you don't, because we both know what the truth is. Otherwise let's do it like in court. "Monks in almost all religions have been required to be celibate" - is that a true statement, or a false statement?
2. Thinking monks should be celibate does not entail priests should be celibate.
3. I never claimed the only reason to be celibate is spiritual enlightenment, nor that only monks should be interested in celibacy. I live a celibate lifestyle for the moment, and I'm not a monk, nor do I plan to ever be one. Nor am I interested in achieving spiritual enlightenment in this life for that matter.
4. Circular argument - what argument? There was no argument. Merely pointing to a fact that almost all monks have been required to be celibate. Then I proceeded to say that if someone thinks this is wrong, they implicitly think that almost all monks have been mistaken - thus that they were idiots. There's nothing absurd or circular about this. Contrary to your silly caricature, I haven't turned this into a sufficient reason to suggest that John and people like him are necessarily wrong. It's suggestive of the fact that they are wrong - that much is certain - but it's not establishing this with 100% certainty, the way a true syllogism would.
5. You never bother to give sources for your counterfactual claims. My sources are very clear - just look at the teachings of literarily all religions of the past. Very simple.

But of course, your prefer to continue in your shamelessness in order to push your agenda. And yes - ad hominem so soon, because that is the only possible answer to someone who doesn't address the points, and yet insists that they are right.

I think that they were definitely just all idiots.

I appreciate your honesty ;)

>:O

Buddha came from India.

I've had one mathematician whose work is classified as Top Secret express great interest in my work, experts in AI, physics, and even Ram Das and the CEO of Google. That few people here comprehend Taoism comes as no surprise to me and is no reflection on my work. I don't write pop philosophy.

Oh yeah, very many experts and public figures express support for "The Secret" too - does it mean that "The Secret" isn't pseudo-philosophy? I doubt many of the global leaders - like Mr. Pichai (or Eric Schmitt - whoever you referred to as CEO of Google) have any idea about the rigors of philosophy. They all swim in an environment where the concentration of pseudo-philosophy is very high - not to mention that corporate leaders need BS to feed the masses of people who work as slaves under them. They need to tell them about freedom, have workshops, get them to engage in some propagandistic poetry reading, and so forth. That's the only way to get them to accept their chains. They are probably so good at it that they have even deceived themselves!

As far as it appears, your foundational assumptions are self-contradictory. Namely "everything is context dependent" is self-contradictory. To wit:

Is there a context in which "everything is context dependent" is false?
If the answer is yes, then we have reached a contradiction - namely not everything is context dependent. If the answer is "no", then we're back in the real game of deciding and debating what is really true, and what isn't context dependent. And in this real game, your assertion will be just one of many - one which will be impossible to grant without contradiction.

There is no secret and certainly no reason to keep listening to you.

The contradiction is that we both exist and don't exist simultaneously because everything is apparently context dependent. — wuliheron

Given that we obviously do exist (whatever it is we are doing, that is what we call existing, since that's how we use the word - haven't you READ Wittgenstein?), you might want to attempt to resolve this contradiction by examining instead the premise that everything is "apparently" context dependant. You might find the paradox resolved. A paradox is no little thing, it is a serious shortcoming of our human logic in understanding the deeper logic of the universe. Be careful how you throw the term around if you want to get at anything true.

Yes there is a secret, it is this one :D

If the answer is "no", then we're back in the real game of deciding and debating what is really true, and what isn't context dependent. — Agustino

That's faulty reasoning: if the answer is "no", then there is no need to decide about "what is really true, and what isn't context dependent" because if the answer is "no", then there is no context in which "everything is context dependent is false", and thus there is no possible separation between "what is really true" and its context-dependence; i.e. there is nothing that isn't context dependent, including what is really true.

The idea that we get to decide what is real is a hoot. Reality without dreams is just somebody's nightmare and dreams without reality are a demonstrable contradiction. Stay awake long enough and you merely hallucinate.