Okay. — Thorongil

Then you mean "no." :-| — Thorongil

Why do I mean no? :s I actually said yes and told you that the spiritual reality signified by Mithras' name - hence the being represented by Mithras - does exist.

Ah, shoot. I read a "not" that wasn't there. To be honest, I was expecting you to answer that Mithras does not exist. That you think he does is even more bizarre. Explain yourself.

How old are you if I may ask? Have you studied philosophy at University?

Ah, shoot. I read a "not" that wasn't there. To be honest, I was expecting you to answer that Mithras does not exist. — Thorongil

Ah well, that explains why you read a "not" there :P

That you think he does is even more bizarre. Explain yourself. — Thorongil

Well I find it strange that you expected me to answer "no", when I've been saying all along that the Romans had an experience of a spiritual reality that they identified by the name of Mithras. I wouldn't be saying they had an experience of nothing would I? The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc.

How old are you if I may ask? — Beebert

Mid 20s.

Have you studied philosophy at University? — Beebert

No, I'm a civil engineer by degree. I've worked in it briefly, but I'm working in IT/marketing at the moment. So I'm not a professional philosopher - although I have been studying philosophy for a long time, since I was 14-15 probably, or even earlier if you count certain mystics as philosophy.

The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc. — Agustino

I see. I should've known. This little trick was used by the Church Fathers. It's rather irritating in its unfalsifiability, but I guess I must grant it.

little trick — Thorongil

>:O

It's not a little trick at all, but in an age dominated by scientism and the objectification of reality people often have a tendency to admit only one spiritual reality - typically God - because admitting more than one is "too far" out there. But admitting only one spiritual reality is obviously false - a move predicated by one's subjugation to this age rather than anything else.

You cannot have one foot in heaven and the other in hell ;)

even earlier if you count certain mystics as philosophy. — Agustino

Probably my first "foray" into philosophy was Osho at 12 (just because my father at that time was very into the Osho movement). You Mr. Beebs will 100% like Osho given your current positions. If you watch a few of his videos or read his books, you'll forget Nietzsche >:O . I would disagree with him on most things (largely) ever since I became a Christian, but there would still be points of agreement - as there are with Nietzsche for example.

Sure, the number 2 also exists, and yet you cannot touch it or see it. (Nor can you "verify" it for that matter). Not all beings exist in the same manner. — Agustino

You couldn't verify whether the number 2 exists in and of itself because, as you say, there is no coherent conception of numbers in material. However, the number 2 does exist as an idea. That it represents this and that. It's definition, in other words, makes it real, in that one can interact with it in one's mind, but not real in the way one interacts with a keyboard.

Again, where does this idea come from? If you tell me they had an idea of Mithras - where the hell did they get it from? — Agustino

Where does anything that isn't true come from? I can't believe you're asking this question, lol.

No, I don't think I've answered it at all. Clearly there was an underlying experience of trying to relate with a transcendent being/force which was capable of influencing the outcome of their affairs, otherwise they wouldn't think of doing it in the first place, nor would they invest resources to do it - they were quite pragmatic. — Agustino

Where did the idea of a "transcendent being/force" come from, eh? At some point your argument requires a pure understanding of a thing in itself, which isn't possible. You end up with infinite regression of things coming from other things which came from another thing which...

The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc. — Agustino

And flying spaghetti monsters, and unicorns, and.........

You couldn't verify whether the number 2 exists in and of itself because, as you say, there is no coherent conception of numbers in material. However, the number 2 does exist as an idea. That it represents this and that. It's definition, in other words, makes it real, in that one can interact with it in one's mind, but not real in the way one interacts with a keyboard. — Buxtebuddha

Number 2 isn't just an idea. An idea is always an idea OF something (an idea of a circle, an idea of a man, an idea of God, etc.). Number 2 is a being, an entity, which is of a different kind than material entities in this world are.

Where does anything that isn't true come from? — Buxtebuddha

What do you mean that "something isn't true"? Again, you're asking these questions, but you don't take into consideration how truth applies to different types of beings - you presuppose it applies in the same manner.

Where did the idea of a "transcendent being/force" come from, eh? — Buxtebuddha

Our human experience.

At some point your argument requires a pure understanding of a thing in itself, which isn't possible. You end up with infinite regression of things coming from other things which came from another thing which... — Buxtebuddha

Only if we limit ourselves to the "scientific" world.

And flying spaghetti monsters, and unicorns, and......... — Buxtebuddha

Irrelevant. Those don't claim to be transcendent as Mithras, the gods, and other spiritual realities claim to be. Instead they are empirical matters, which are indeed a matter of verification.

the number 2 exists — Buxtebuddha

On this point we can take entities like circles too. Perfect circles don't actually exist in material reality, and yet we have knowledge of them and their properties. The field of Being is much larger than just what can be scientifically or empirically investigated, and we don't always derive things from the empirical towards the conceptual, spiritual, or otherwise non-empirical, it can also be the other way around, as in the case of circles. We derive our equations from perfect circles which we conceive apart from empirical reality, and then we apply them back to real objects (imperfect circles).

Are you seriously suggesting I would prefer Osho to Nietzsche? The Little I have read about and on Osho, he seems like a charlatan

"You Mr. Beebs will 100% like Osho given your current positions."

No I highly doubt it.

he seems like a charlatan — Beebert

Sure, he would even admit to that probably :P But look at his ideas. You'd agree with them. You'd agree with him that society kills the individual, destroys creativity, and enforces conformity. You'd agree that man is free, and must express his freedom. You'd agree on the cruelty of hell and eternal punishment. You'd agree on the cruelty of moralists (such as the 14 year old girl example I gave you). And so forth. His favorite book was afterall "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (here's his reading of it) and his second favorite was Brothers Karamazov.

For me, since I got introduced to philosophy (and religion in a way) by Osho, I found him and reading his writings to give one a broad overview of all of spirituality and philosophy and also to instil a sense of looking for authenticity and personal experience - all of which I found very useful when reading philosophy afterwards and studying religions, and even becoming a Christian. Of course I think that Osho can also lead one astray - in fact is likely to lead one astray - but there are good elements there too.

I guess you are right, you know much more about him than I do. I have just heard others talk about him and he sound like a "rich lazy people pleaser" basically. Or something like that. But from your post, at least his literary taste seems to have been good. I had a friend whose mother was all Into Osho and Rudolf Steiner as if they were the two greatest spiritual truth tellers of all time. I felt that both seemed scary. I dont know... Have you read Steiner too?

Rajneesh is more akin to Gurdjieff than to Steiner. He avows a deep admiration for the former, I'm nof aware of him ever referring to the latter. But then I have not read all of his transcribed lectures.

Well, no, I don't think rape, etc. are okay towards the guilty. This doesn't seem to be what Nietzsche is saying at all either. — Agustino

Indeed. Nietzsche is commenting on the structure of morality. The point is not that rape (or anything else) is moral, but that morality always specifies and defines its unique cruelty. If it were true (so in the case of God, if God commanded it) the immoral ought be raped, then such cruelty would be moral virtue. And so on and so on, for any moral virtue and the cruelty which constitutes it.

Nietzsche point is Christianity is telling a falsehood. With respect to the presence and seeking of cruelty, Christian morality is no different to pre-Christian morality. It just specifies different cruelties. God is its aristocracy. Instead of suffering the whatever whim the aristocrat of man might decide, we suffer the whim of God.

Often this is better morally, no longer is morality merely spoken in terms of a human’s (the aristocrat) authority and whim, such that we must any action he takes, including those done for greed at the expense of others. It reorders morality to remove certain cruelties. Still, being morality, it puts it’s own in, the extent and nature of which depend on the particular account of God you are talking about.

My point about the rape and torture of Hell was to show God’s morality has the same logical relationship as the human aristocrat. If such rape and torture were moral, if God commanded it, they would be a moral virtue-- just as the command of the pre-Christian aristocrat. The Christian is confusing how their morality is different from the past. Rather than eschewing domination and cruelty, Christian morality only specifies different cruelties. (in this respect, post-Christian morality is no different either. Secular liberalism, for example, has its own cruelties it inflicts to achieve what it understands as moral virtue).

This is just a non-sequitur for example, confusing an is with an ought. — Agustino

Nietzsche is pointing that exact fallacy. The mere presence of world doesn’t define a moral relationship. One needs an account of morality, which specifies which acts of violence, exploitation, rape and destruction are unjust and just. Without such an account, there is just life doing whatever it does. Nothing can be "intrinsically" unjust, that is, unjust merely by existing. Morality needs to do that work.

Yes, but not in the sense of raping them, and so forth. It demands cruelty in that the immoral are told that they must change their ways, repent. In a certain sense this is a cruelty. One is even being cruel to themselves when they demand that they change. But this is absolutely not the same as the cruelty of violence, being raped, etc. — Agustino

For sure, but only because that is the limit of God's command in this case. If God were to command the cruelty of a rape at some point, it would be just. All instances of morality are cruel in this sense, in their unflinching demand for domination and/or destruction of immorality. While it's different in the normative sense, it's the same in the descriptive sense that Nietzsche is interested in.

No, this would be wrong. Moral greatness - even according to Nietzsche actually - comes from strength, and is not a reaction to the weakness of others. It is a self-affirmation of one's own greatness, it is not being cruel and possessing the immoral. — Agustino

Yes and no.

In the sense Nietzsche holds morality is from strength, for sure. This isn't a rejection of either cruelty or domination though, just an argument people should be aware and honest about what they are doing. For example, sinners are not damned because of their weak of lack of repentance, but rather because of the self-affirmaiton of God an the Christian-- "Only those with the strength of repentance are saved."

You're right Nietzsche is against being cruel and domination, for the sake of domination (e.g. you must because you exist, and terrible, and belong to me), but that doesn't mean morality (even his own) is free of cruelty and domination. When cruelty and domination are a result of strength and self-affiirmation, they belong to the moral (which is why he praises aristocrats; they are honest about morality as a self-affirmation. Even if they are normatively abhorrent, they understand morality is defined in the affirmation of a particular will to power-- in being good and seeking it over the immoral, rather than by worthlessness and failing).

Rajneesh is more akin to Gurdjieff than to Steiner. He avows a deep admiration for the former, I'm nof aware of him ever referring to the latter. — Janus

It would be strange to find a prominent historical figure that Osho doesn't refer to. He speaks, at times quite extensively, about Steiner, though not quite so admiringly. Even his admiration for Gurdjieff is limited, much like his admiration for Buddha, Christ, etc. The only figure that he seems to have only admiration and adoration for seems to be the Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma.

Here's what he had to say on Steiner.

I have just heard others talk about him and he sound like a "rich lazy people pleaser" basically — Beebert

Listen to this. It's exactly what you're saying too ^^ (especially with regards to life-affirmation).

Have you read Steiner too? — Beebert

Not really, very little. Steiner has a lot of writings, I've only had a look at Philosophy of Freedom.

I felt that both seemed scary. — Beebert

Well I obviously think they're incomplete (and very likely to lead one astray), but they are on Nietzsche's level.

"but they are on Nietzsche's level."

?!?!?!

?!?!?! — Beebert

What's the question?

What do you mean on Nietzsche's level? These men belong to a different cathegory. It is enough to look at the quality of their prose

What do you mean on Nietzsche's level? — Beebert

For example, at least Osho, takes on a lot of Nietzsche's ideas, including critique of traditional religion, condemnation of hypocrisy, ideas on morality, etc.

These men belong to a different cathegory — Beebert

How do you mean?

"How do you mean?"
In terms of greatness, depth of thought, honesty etc. Nietzsche goes far beyond what Osho does, and Steiner just tried to grasp everything so to thé degree that he grasped almost nothing.
It is almost like comparing Chopin to Salieri. Or Tolstoy to JK Rowling ( in the case of Osho), and perhaps to Tolkien or CS Lewis in the case of Steiner.

In terms of greatness, depth of thought, honesty etc. Nietzsche goes far beyond what Osho does, and Steiner just tried to grasp everything so to thé degree that he grasped almost nothing.
It is almost like comparing Chopin to Salieri. Or Tolstoy to JK Rowling ( in the case of Osho), and perhaps to Tolkien or CS Lewis in the case of Steiner. — Beebert

I'm not quite sure Nietzsche is that great either. There's a lot of things he was blind to.

For example, you protest about eternal hell and say that it makes God evil, and that everyone should be saved. But is that what you truthfully think, or do you merely say that because of ressentiment, because you're not strong enough to accept the doctrine of hell, and that some, maybe even you, will be damned? And out of your own fear and repulsion and weakness you invent a morality which you use to judge God by, and condemn God, just because you lack the strength to accept the Truth.

"For example, you protest about eternal hell and say that it makes God evil, and that everyone should be saved."

Never did I say that. But the opposite to universalism isnt that great of a solution

"because you're not strong enough to accept the doctrine of hell, and that some, maybe even you, will be damned?"

... I would Love to hear you say that if you end up in the hell of John of Patmos, that bitter little cave man... The question is rather: How can one be so blind as to not see that not a single doctrine is more cruel than this one, that it is the opposite of "justice"? Rather anti-justice? Demand for justice as understood by a "saved" Christian is demand for a revenge that never ends. The hatred that has blossomed in the heart of someone who demands and longs for this must be so great that it has no end and no cure; that is, it must be as infinite as the hell they Believe in. It is obvious that Paul believed himself to be saved and going to heaven while others would go to hell. To Believe otherwise is to be a bad reader. Paul... Humble? I cant find the spirit of Francis of Assisi in Paul. No honest man can. It is not a question of whether this superstitious doctrine is true or not. If it were true, I wouldnt want heaven anyway. I dont have such a strong longing for "justice" that I would rejoice in seeing the enemies I "love"(as a Christian right?) burning in fire forever. I think Christians dont understand the word eternal, forever, everlasting. Eternal hell isnt a solution to anything. It is primitive and heartless and nothing besides. Even if something is true, it is obvious one often doesnt accept it. Can my intellect accept? Yes, even though vaguely. My heart? Hardly and never. I dont care about your proud fantasy that you believe that you have understood anything about God by not understanding him. One should either be honest and read Scripture like for example Spinoza did, or otherwise not even talk about justice or hell or faith in any way whatsoever if one anyway says "God's justice is beyond justice and his goodness beyond goodness". If so, then we shouldnt speak of him at all. We should leave him alone just as he appears to have left us alone.

"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in
the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.... Not many wise
men after the flesh, not men mighty, not many noble are called: But
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things
which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are
despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to
nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

Against those who seek knowledge? Against the spirit of an Aristotle and a Socrates? A Buddha and a Lao Tzu? Against an Einstein and a Newton? We are fortunate that MOST of us havent really understood the psychology behind these words of the wise Paul... It seems like nothing but projection here. He was "learned and wise", now finally he could do away with the suffering that brings and send his old self projected on all learned People around him to hell. Now this is different psychology than when Jesus rejoices that God Only reveals himself to he who is like a child. Because for Jesus, an Einstein and a Socrates was a child in his quest and hunger for knowledge and wisdom. Life as Jesus saw it was already HERE, it was finally a celebration of life. He abolished guilt and torments of conscience. Paul made these things worse, and it is rather his words that led to the trial of Galileo Galilei etc. Didnt the Church understand that in Christ's words, THEY were the "learned" and Galilei was the child?! Not so with Paul and the catholic church. "Not many noble are called"... So not all are called?

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

?!?!?! What? Shall the Saints, a John of Patmos etc. judge the world? Men who rejoice in seeing "noble" (in Paul's pathetic words) people in hell without even knowing what noble means? People who rejoice in seeing a "wise " man being judged by a "foolish" man? And yet, in reality the foolish have been like the "learned"(Aquinas, the whole Catholic Church) and the noble (an Einstein, a Galilei etc) have been like a child.

"Know ye not
that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this
life?"...

It gets worse. This seems like the height of immodesty. I can't even imagine seeing a Paul at some throne judging a Beethoven... That will not look good. And now angels too? This man must really have thought that he was the centre of the universe...

So these are examples that I react against. There is no sense of life in the present in a man like Paul.

"because you're not strong enough to accept the doctrine of hell, and that some, maybe even you, will be damned?"

Even the word "damned" stinks of lies and hatred. The word itself is criminal to use in the same breath as "love". Another curious thing: The blindness among those who do not see that it is he who wrongly considers himself to be saved that condemns others to hell and come up with dogmas to tell how one is damned and who is damned and not. This IS cruelty beyond all other cruelties. Done by what authority? They claim it is by God's! Who the "wisest " among them admit they no almosg nothing about! So dont talk about what is cruel and what is not.

"And out of your own fear and repulsion and weakness you invent a morality which you use to judge God by, and condemn God, just because you lack the strength to accept the Truth"

Wow, what great psychology! I guess even you have to Thank Nietzsche then! A bit dishonest though, dont you think? And if I judge anything, it is a fantasy and not a True living God. That is obvious based on your understanding of God