I was under the impression that the mind/body debate was about whether they are of the same substance. Are they both physical or is the body physical and the mind something else?

Your example of severing the mind from the body doesn't tell us this, since even when we sever the mind from the body we have no idea whether mind stops existing.

"Involved in", sure. But the mind produces the image. Even without the eyes the mind can produce images, no?

I explained how the mind produces our vision; not the eyes. And this is not disputed, at all. If we saw directly through the eyes we'd be seeing everything upside down.

If you think I was referring to an actual physical midget living in your brain, you must be a tad simple.

Such a thought presupposes that something—maybe a little man or some other being—is in our head looking at the image, insulated from reality. — NOS4A2

Yes. You.

Getting the legal system involved is a terrible idea if one values their familial ties, which the OP clearly does.

Simply not lending any more money, and thinking about some other way to alleviate the brother's troubles, would be infinitely better.

Take this as an example;
When we think we see an object, we are not actually directly experiencing it, but instead looking at an image that our mind creates. Thus, we are not directly experiencing the object.

We could go even further. Our mind doesn't experience the object directly, but neither do our eyes. Our eyes experience light; not the object itself.

Considering man never directly experiences anything other than mind, I am very curious what such a proof would look like.

Use whatever definition that helps your argument, but I am much more interested in how you arrive at that definition than the definition itself.

Conventional definitions don't interest me. Explain it to me.

Why can they not be experiences?

Minds have experiences — Terrapin Station

Explain to me the difference between mind and experience, then.

Considering mind is an experience, and body is a physical object, I'm actually curious what the argument is for these two being the same?

The key question you should ask yourself is this: Is your money actually going to help him?

If the money isn't helping him and he keeps getting himself into financial trouble, he doesn't need more money, but good advice. Perhaps you could set him up for financial counseling?

I think you're doing the right thing by helping your brother and it's in both of your best interests to ensure that the help you're giving him is amounting to something and not ending up down the drain.

And what will he do when the brother doesn't pay him back? Sue him? You're giving the sort of advice that destroys families.

It seems you are willfully missing my point.

I apologize, I'm not following that. Are you saying that those people lied? How do you know? Did you talk to them? — 3017amen

We do not know if they lie. We do not know if they speak the truth either. Sadly, in this day and age there is plenty of motivation to lie about these things, thus unsubstantiated accusations should be looked at with much skepticism.

What's hard to understand?

Radical ideologues will see racism or sexism in anything, and taking unsubtantiated claims of 'secret messaging' seriously gives them a card-blanche to start throwing accusations at anyone they do not like.

Apart from accusations based on nothing but baked air?

In this era of mudsllinging and false accusations, I'll think twice before believing tales of "hidden messaging."

I'm referring specifically to moral relativism, and I'm not suggesting that all atheists are moral relativists.

Many atheists however, (perhaps those less intellectually inclined) put blind faith in science to solve all of man's problems. Science will find a solution to man's habit of destroying the planet (so we don't need to adjust our behavior). Science will provide us with all we need (so we no longer need to look after one another) Medicine will provide the cure to depression (so we don't need to think critically about our beliefs), etc.

I think that's a dangerous trend.

Science has become the new religion, and since it hasn't given us any basis for objective morality, many have come to the conclusion that it must not exist. It's a dangerous trend. Science, when seen as the only way to truth, becomes the antithesis to philosophy, and philosophy is much of what seperates man from animals.

I'm not sure patriarchy is the problem. Whether society is ruled over by men, women or a mix of the two, it would still be having all the same problems it has today. The real culprit is materialism, in its broadest sense.

Shekhinah becomes an evil being when she is imbalanced by the lack of the masculine qualities. — uncanni

Doesn't that make perfect sense? Just like how a being with only masculine qualities is horribly unbalanced and will undoubtedly turn away from the Good?

This means that God is not a prick, nor is he genocidal because we can't take the claims of what he did literally. It is the story you must read, at least according to you, without regard to the literal translation. For that reason, if the Bible claims he killed all sorts of people, he literally did not, so you must decipher the meaning of the allegory. — Hanover

It is slightly more complicated than "all of the Bible is allegory".

One can observe very striking differences between scripture that is attributed to Saint Paul and those scriptures that have been identified as being older; those of Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke, containing the teachings of Jesus, bear far more resemblance to wisdom literature than religious scripture. They contain no miracles, no post-resurrection, etc.

The fact that Paul's writings differ so much from earlier writings means that it needs to be looked at most suspiciously, including all that it influenced. Ironically, most of what modern Christianity teaches is Pauline in nature.

So what this could mean, possibly, is that if one wants to understand the actual teachings of Jesus, most of the New Testament can be tossed in the garbage.

Furthermore, it is no secret that parts of Christianity have sought links with Judaism, especially Rome. This could explain the resemblance of the Christian God to the Judaic God. However, if the above may be true, these links are non-existent, and these resemblances are forgeries, later additions made with a different agenda than staying true to Christian teachings.

While I have read much on the topic, I realize I am no expert on this topic. So if you are interested I can provide some links to persons who do a much better job at explaining all of this.

Christianity is Judaism 2.0 — Gnostic Christian Bishop

After having read much material on the subject, I am no longer sure whether this is true.

If you're interested, there are a number of lectures available on the subject on YouTube.

This is one of them;



What the video suggests is, like I have stated earlier, that the teachings of Jesus were Cynic, thus Hellenistic, in essence, and that much of what is practiced by Christians today in based on what has been added at much later dates and has little to do with Jesus's original teachings. Furthermore, it opens up the possibility of the New Testament being of an allegorical nature, rather than a literal one.

I agree! Let these "modern" feminists withhold all sex, so they may die alone and childless, lest men will be free to pursue sexual relations with those women who willingly subjugate themselves to their authority.

Scriptures say many things, but there's a lot of debate what the role of scripture is within Christianity. When you go back to the earliest writings and distill from them the teachings of Jesus (Matthew and Luke), what you'll find is essentially Cynic (Hellenistic) philosophy.
This puts not only the New Testament in an entirely new perspective, but also severely puts to the question the position that Christianity came forth from Judaism.
When Christianity is viewed through this new light, it gives room for entirely different interpretations of heaven and hell.

If you're interested in this matter, I can share the sources with you.

I had already taken it into consideration.

Well, yes, because women have been more disadvantaged by patriarchy. — Artemis

I disagree. I'd say women have benefited disproportionately to the weight they've been pulling.

Of course it's projection. But not mine; — Artemis

Of course it's not!

If God is the powerful rulers and also a man, then it suggests that men are powerful rulers--over whom? Women usually. Ergo, women become oppressed. — Artemis

That's all projection.

When positive qualities are attributed to one sex, it doesn't follow that the opposite sex is devoid of such qualities. That's the unconscious, false step people make all the time, but that step is being made in no other place than their own heads. Likewise for the idea that the presence of a positive quality in the opposite sex would confer some form of superiority.

The Virgin Mary symbolism would simply absolve men of, but impose on women, the need to be pure (ie, chaste) and obviously, that's exactly how it's played out socially. — Artemis

This is nonsense. Chasteness is taught as a Christian virtue to both men and women. Or does 'no sex out of wedlock' apply just to women?

Projection, projection, projection!

the inherent oppression tied into our view of God as a man. — Bridget Eagles

I don't agree with this.

Or is the fact that the Virgin Mary, a symbol of purity and virtue, is female also oppressive to men?

This says it all, really:

All is relative. We could be living in the subatomic particles of another world, for all we know. It reminds me of this famous scene from the Simpsons:

https://external-preview.redd.it/n8RY8KcpG9JEj6VRsFBMA7DdX0jq0Tb1H4yRE_y_3c0.gif?format=mp4&s=7a205b2d94be9387f2e83a12e40ec2ca8c3e4290

But hang on a minute, how the hell can you dismiss “the Master of all who Know” with such contempt? — PhilCF

"The Master of all who Know".

That title strikes me as sarcastic. Men like Socrates and Plato questioned man's ability to know. If this is what they called Aristotle, then it should be read as "Master of the ignorant".

I haven't read much of Seneca, but he never gave me the impression of being cold or disaffectionate. Mind sharing the passages which lead to your views? Share any passage, of any Stoic philosopher. I'm curious what you make of them.

Stoicism does result in a less passionate individual. — PhilCF

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think this is true.

I haven't read all the Stoics; only Marcus Aurelius, and the man is very clearly filled with love and passion for life and for his fellow man.

“When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive — to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

"Whoever, then, understands what is good, can also know how to love; but he who cannot distinguish good from bad, and things which are neither good nor bad from both, can he possess the power of loving? To love, then, is only in the power of the wise." - Epictetus, Discourses

The flaw is not in us having passions. The flaw is in us adopting ideologies that seek to erase them from our conscious mind. — PhilCF

Neither Plato nor the Stoics tell one to erase emotion from the mind.

I think hate is a natural response to that which makes a person feel vulnerable.
Like any emotion, I think it is neither good nor evil, however, like any emotion, if it is left uncontrolled it can be destructive. If it is understood and channeled it can be constructive.
If we use our hate to recognize the imperfections in ourselves, we can use it to grow.
So yes, embrace all your emotions, whether they be negative or positive, and seek to use them to become a better person.

So, perhaps we're in agreement, if I've at last read through everything correctly? — Shamshir

Yes we are!