I'm not proposing an either/or (ala Kierkergaard) and can as much enjoy the intellectual pursuits as Socrates and recognize the importance of science as Pierce, but that doesn't negate the possibility of faith as well.

But where do you arrive at the idea that the examined life (as translated by modern sensibilities) is a virtuous raison d'etre other than your subjective assessment? If my life suffers in all objective measure as the result of my rejection of faith, is such just my unfortunate fate even though there was a way to have avoided it? Why must I worship at your alter? Because it is the path to Truth? But we're right back in our circle - I must accept that the rational pursuit of truth is a valid reason to exist in order to be persuaded by rationality alone.

How aren't you similar to the evangelical at my door telling me to follow his path to truth so that I can experience true joy? Is it impossible to believe my beliefs do accomplish exactly as I say they do?

The point here is that the way of Athens is not the only way to a meaningful life. The way of Jerusalem works just as well. Either path is a choice

Again, this topic ain't about you. :roll:

My only objection is that it's a two-way street. — god must be atheist

But that is my point as well.

But that is my point as well. — Hanover

I think you and I are in agreement with each other then, not in contention. I just did not read your post all the way to the end, I suppose. BTW, the post that made me think was not the last one, and not the second last one in this thread, either.

@Hanover Again, this topic ain't about you. — 180 Proof

This is the newest. I got this same from @Banno (

Yeah, that's really about Must, isn't it. — Banno

) and a number of us got this same from @StreetlightX(

Again, the capacity of white people to turn a discussion of centuries of racial opression into one about their feelings will never not surprise me. — StreetlightX

)

So the newest is: "This is about you, ain't it."

Shit.

:smirk:

:wink: :halo:

Again, this topic ain't about you. :roll: — 180 Proof

Such is our point of contention. You deny the significance of the subjective commitment to faith and I hold it primary. The basis for my position is that it imbues my life with meaning. I can see no reason to substitute your objective (i.e. to live the examined life) for mine.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake. Why is that the universal good? I recognize the hedonistic value of intellectual pursuits, but if that's all there is, I quickly reach an existential problem centering around why am I wasting my time learning the intricacies of our randomly created world?

...why am I wasting my time learning the intricacies of our randomly created world? — Hanover

Philosophical hold nearly as profound a meaningfulness as spiritual pursuits. Dispelling a fatal confusion is a profoundly meaningful achievement - and borders on salvation. It is indeed at times far more spiritually transfiguring than - typically lukewarm* - dreams of salvation.



*Spiritual fire, of course, is something different. In terms of life-meaning, philosophy can't hold a candle to it.

Philosophical hold nearly as profound a meaningfulness as spiritual pursuits. Dispelling a fatal confusion is a profoundly meaningful achievement - and borders on salvation. It is indeed at times far more spiritually transfiguring than - typically lukewarm - dreams of salvation. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If that's your belief, then the altar of philosophy is where you should kneel. Like I said, I'm not an evangelical. You do you.

My point is simply that if the quest is for meaning, then the quest for knowledge will only get you closer to meaning to the extent you equate meaning with knowledge. That's a personal preference. If knowing the ins and outs of our world leads you to have a subjectively meaningful life, then do that.

I do believe I view intellectual masturbation more pleasurable than most. That's why I'm here in this forum. Doing this right here is not the meaning of life though. Not mine at least. But if yours, wow, but ok.

But if yours, wow, but ok. — Hanover

Of course not. Life-meaning comes from all kinds of places and all kinds of life-meaning can be integrated and synergized.

But without philosophy I would be so confused it would be difficult, in this age, to pursue a spiritual objective in any clear-sighted sort of way. We're born so confused.

The faith of John the Revelator - the fire of his Revelation - that incomparable poetic energy of the prophet - is hardly available to the typical twenty-first-century Seeker. Some folks need philosophy to clear a path to it. First clear away your native or inherited confusion* - then seek His Holy Fire.


*Far from masturbation.

Haglund has also made the mistake for claiming that only religious considerations can make one feel their life has meaning, purpose — god must be atheist

It makes me feel my life has meaning. Scientific meaning, which is the alternative you suggest, gives me an uneasy feeling. I am no product of randomly started particles or genes and memes directing life for the sake of replication. You can describe life like that, I mean, there are genes, memes, particles and time appearing by inflation from virtuality at a central 4D wormhole singularity if two previous 3D universes have inflated away from each other, etc. It's nice to know. But that's not the reason it's all happening. It must have been made by gods. They made a copy of heaven and the only moral we should conform to is not to fuck up what they created. But science is doing exactly that. So no moral how we should be, what we should be, or about stealing and murdering..The gods in heaven steal and murder too. Are good and bad, fair and unfair. And the human gods in heaven aren't given a chance to fuck up heaven and kill parts of heaven in the name of some heavenly science, as the matter they made the universe with was not present yet, letmetellya! They were involved too in the creation of the universe. But no other gods payed attention to them in the preamble to creation... They should have.

, Haglund also makes a mistake by categorically stating that atheists can't feel comfort, because they lack religious considerations. — god must be atheist

Where did I say that? If you feel good without them, that's fine by me. I only explained why it feels good for me. Damned, these Jehova witnesses were right all the time! Though their god is very different from my gods!

Memento mori. Memento vivire.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake. — Hanover

No, I do not.
 

I quickly reach an existential problem centering around why am I wasting my time learning the intricacies of our randomly created world?

Since time "wastes" all things and us too, gaining some understanding for its own sake seems like a more enriching way of "wasting" this interval between the two oblivions rather than making believe 'shit made up just to flatter and console ourselves' in anxious denial of the existential mediocrity principle (i.e. boredom). "One must imagine Sisyphus happy" (Camus) if one's happiness is defiant (lucid, active) not merely sheepish (nostalgic, passive). Amor intrllectualis dei. The end of a song is not it's goal. The journey is the destination. Ja-sagen: "be here now!". Amor fati :fire:

Do not go gentle into that good
night,
Old age should burn and rave at
close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the
light.

Though wise men at their end
know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no
lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good
night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying
how bright
Their frail deeds might have
danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the
light.

Wild men who caught and sang the
sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it
on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good
night.

Grave men, near death, who see
with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors
and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the
light.

And you, my father, there on the
sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your
fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good
night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the
light.

:death: :flower:

Do not go gentle into that good
night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the
light — 180 Proof

:fire: :hearts: :fire:

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake.
— Hanover
No, I do not. — 180 Proof

Yet you do explain:

Since time "wastes" all things and us too, gaining some understanding for its own sake seems like a more enriching way of "wasting" this interval between the two oblivions rather than making believe 'shit made up just to flatter and console ourselves' in anxious denial of the existential mediocrity principle (i.e. boredom). " — 180 Proof

And I accept your reason for you. There's no basis here except that "it seems" an enriching way to live your life. This really isn't about you, so I'm not sure why you're telling me what you like to do. Why devolve into the subjectivity you previously criticized?

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. — Hanover

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens).

My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard? — Hanover

Not all drinkers drink the Kool-Aid to excess, but for the ones who do there are countless horror stories (think Jim Jones).

Why must I worship at your alter? — Hanover

This is a false equivalency, as though you’re saying that it’s impossible to feel pleasure (or whatever benefit alcohol offers) without drinking.

:roll:

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens). — praxis

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. As I previously mentioned and what wasn't addressed was that you would need to show the devastating implications of faith as you see in alcoholism.

That is, my question was whether ruined lives are characteristics of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as we see in the alcoholic.

If, as you're implying here, you're using alcohol as a benign example of a way to bring about bliss without the negative implications, as if it might offer a euphoria that includes leaving the user with a state of long term meaning and contentment, then it would be analogous, but that's not what alcohol is. If it were, and it did not have its negative effects, I suppose I would be advocating its usage. I just don't think the meaning of life has ever been found at the bottom of a bottle, although many have looked there.

...you would need to show the devastating implications of faith — Hanover

The Westboro Baptist Church?*

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth).

Faith has its ego-apotheosic pitfalls, its mad, mad crusades. Faith that one has the Holy Truth in hand, and the blessing of the Almighty - that's why Christians hate and ostracize homosexuals and Muslims hate and bomb infidels.

A meek and mild faith is a different story.



* Amazingly, their url is: godhatesfags.com

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. — Hanover

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” I can only assume that’s a faith based moralization on your part. Chemo therapy, for example, is highly toxic but can be beneficial nevertheless and for that reason can be considered good. Plants and animals produce toxins as defense mechanisms or survival strategies. That’s not evil, in my opinion. We bombard the planet with poisons to kill pests. Is that evil? I might agree that it is in that case.

Perhaps you consider intoxication evil. If so, why? Is it because it influences our thinking, judgment, inhibitions, reflexes, etc.? If a religion doesn’t have any influential power, if no one drinks the Kool-Aid, then it’s probably about as meaningful as a Seinfeld rerun, amusing in the moment but quickly forgotten. If religion does have influential power, if we can be ‘under the influence’ of religion, then by your own definition it is evil.

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth). — ZzzoneiroCosm

That I agree with. I would place the evil on the actions, not the intent, so it's not the faith that is doing the harm, but the attempted imposition of one's values upon another.

And that really is what my objection has been here, which is the suggestion that another person's discovery of the meaning of life need be imposed on those who have rejected it. If someone has found the meaning of life deciphering analytic syllogisms, good for them. I don't know how they can claim their discovery superior to mine if mine subjectively works for me in terms of providing me meaning.

:clap:

... alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil.
— Hanover

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” — praxis

:up:

:clap:

... alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil.
— Hanover

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” — praxis

:up:

You say potato, I say comiconomenclaturist?

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth). — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure, but can't you say the same about any human activity at all? Almost any thought system, activity or profession has its share of toxic, dictatorial narcissists.

You say potato, I say comiconomenclaturist — Tom Storm

If the question is "Does alcohol give you cirrhosis?," the answer is yes no matter what you believe. If the question is "Does alcohol give your life meaning?," that depends. Me, no, but if you say otherwise for you, then yes for you.

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” — praxis

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. I countered in two ways: (1) I have seen lives destroyed by alcohol, but not so much by faith, and (2) if you insist you have found the fountain of meaning in the bottle, then drink up.

That is to say, I don't think that faith and alcohol consumption are similar enough experiences for meaningful comparison, but if you insist they are, then have at it and enjoy your meaning on the rocks.

I wish I learned philosophy as a child rather than religion.

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious. — Hanover

I was simply trying to determine your meaning about alcohol being toxic, which is still not obvious to me.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. — Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding. — praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof