Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 21st, 2019, 12:06 pm 

Don’t be afraid to venture back again in the future, and good look out there :)

In the meantime I’ll leave you with this from the opening of Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” :

SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importu- nity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for win- ning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and ab- solute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrol- ogy in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its
‘super- terrestrial’ pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe them- selves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enor- mous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedan- ta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato’s invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the strug- gle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE— the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: ‘How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?’ But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the ‘people’—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISITIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE ‘PEOPLE’), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in ‘distress’! (The Germans invented gunpowder-all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....

Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 22nd, 2019, 4:24 am 

TheVat » March 21st, 2019, 6:19 pm wrote:If I were to ask newbies to read Forum Guidelines (in the announcement forum), it might save some trouble later. Nick, read the whole thing and see if you can follow the rules most specific to PCF. If not, then we'll have to conclude it's not quite the right venue for you.

On some days, I'm thinking we need to move all of Nick_A's threads into the Ethics section.

But the issue is more problematic. The amount of venomous invective he shoots at "Secularism" would trick the reader to conclude he must be talking about religion. So then you think , "Well fine then. Lets move his thread to the Religion section". But then again : none of his posts on the forum specifically say anything about Christianity. Not a single bible quote in any of his posts.

There is a lot of Simone Weil and Plato here. I'd like to ignore Weil, except then I found out she publicly debated Leon Trotsky in writing and in the press about political theory.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 22nd, 2019, 5:49 pm 

One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding.


--> " . . . transcends all predication and discursive understanding."


I’ll find forum in which people are open to what is meant by Plotinus’ ONE,

and the ineffable Source written of by those like Spinoza, Simone Weil, and Einstein.

One wonders, how anyone, Nick_A himself included could be "open to" that which transcends all predication and discursive understanding.

I mean, it either transcends all predication and discourse, or it does not.

And if it does, then it is not philosophy. It's either poetry or some kind of cult ritual.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on March 22nd, 2019, 6:59 pm 

Well, I hope Nick appreciates alert members who can expose some logical contradictions in the thread. That's worth something.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 22nd, 2019, 9:02 pm 

I should really respond to this for the sake of anyone wondering what the fuss is about. First of all, anyone reading the guidelines knows that they are natural fo me raising the obvious question of why the venue is not right for me. The sad truth is that I further and defend the great ideas introduced here by Plato, Simone Weil, Jacob Needleman, Einstein and others which open the mind to a universal perspective as opposed to remaining locked in a secular perspective. Regardless of what Lykos thinks I’ve explained what secularism and did it again in my last post on the conscience thread.

It has been proven over again in real life as well as online that the universal perspective is rejected with emotional denial since by definition the universal perspective includes the quality of reality above Plato’s divided line beyond the abilities of our senses.

PCF takes "philosophy" in broad terms and covers all aspects of human experience. Philosophical discussions should proceed by reason and example. Users should be ready to support their claims.

We seek to provide a forum for you to explore your ideas. However, it is expected that you be willing to explain why you believe what you believe. Preaching, dogmatic assertions, circular arguments, rambling and other forms of unresponsive speech are not consistent with the ideal of ongoing discourse.


Of course it doesn’t work. Certain ideas are intolerable so cannot be pursued other than by altering them into a secular societal perspective. This thread is a perfect example. It is intolerable to consider the question of ths thread from a universal perspective.

You can say so what since there is nothing but a secular perspective. However this is not philosophy nor does it represent the purpose of philosophy other than within the confines of secularism.

I would suggest anyone interested in the human purpose of philosophy to read Jacob Needleman’s book “The Heart of Philosophy.” I posted an excerpt from the intro for you to consider

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….


What does it mean to contemplalte Plotinus' ONE without associtive thought? It may mean everything.

If you are one of those who have felt that you are more than a physical automton walking around in Plato’s cave, you are not alone. You have to ask yourself what you can do to respect it and allow this living quality to grow. This means respecting the purpose of philosophy. Do we ridicule the great questions or try to open to what they mean and remembering their significance?

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth..............................


Many would ask who she thinks she is. The purpose of philosophy is to eternally argue opinions All else is elitism. But she knew that there is a quality of knowledge Plato wrote of that transcended opinions and she wanted to be with those who understood.

If you are one of those who need more from philosophy than arguing opinions you are neither nuts or an elitist. You are normal. You can join with those who feel the purpose of philosophy described by Jacob Needleman. You may not be welcome on secular philosophy venues but will be welcomed by all who feel as you do and appreciate philosophy as more than self justification. Whatever you do, don’t surrender to PC and majority beliefs and just become a “thing” Feel the great questions rather than trying to answer them superficially. The world has enough things. We need more human beings and those capable of becoming what Einstein called the "Cosmic Man."
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 23rd, 2019, 12:45 am 

Nick -

For me the issue hasn’t been the subject matter. The problem has been in questions either avoided or ignored. I looked for common ground, asked if I was correct and received no answer. Plus you seem to repeat yourself a lot without listening to the responses nor take in to consideration that we haven’t read what you’ve yet may have read things you haven’t.

You will get traction here I reckon if you take step back, maybe don’t post for week, and consider a different approach. Look for some common ground and then build from here.

I don’t think it’s the wrong place for you. You may actually breath a little life into the philosophy side of this forum - understand that it was created primarily as a science forum.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 23rd, 2019, 12:50 am 

What does it mean to contemplalte Plotinus' ONE without associtive thought? It may mean everything.

Well, whatever THE ONE is, it transcends all understanding, transcends all predication, and goes beyond all discourse. Contemplate that!

This means respecting the purpose of philosophy. Do we ridicule the great questions or try to open to what they mean and remembering their significance?

So says the guy who never answers any direct question put to him.


You may not be welcome on secular philosophy venues but will be welcomed by all who feel as you do and appreciate philosophy as more than self justification. Whatever you do, don’t surrender to PC and majority beliefs and just become a “thing” Feel the great questions rather than trying to answer them superficially.

Feel the great questions -- because they are not amenable to discourse. In fact, they "transcend all predication".

You like, can't define me, man.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 23rd, 2019, 12:52 pm 

hyksos » March 23rd, 2019, 12:50 am wrote:
What does it mean to contemplalte Plotinus' ONE without associtive thought? It may mean everything.

Well, whatever THE ONE is, it transcends all understanding, transcends all predication, and goes beyond all discourse. Contemplate that!

This means respecting the purpose of philosophy. Do we ridicule the great questions or try to open to what they mean and remembering their significance?

So says the guy who never answers any direct question put to him.


You may not be welcome on secular philosophy venues but will be welcomed by all who feel as you do and appreciate philosophy as more than self justification. Whatever you do, don’t surrender to PC and majority beliefs and just become a “thing” Feel the great questions rather than trying to answer them superficially.

Feel the great questions -- because they are not amenable to discourse. In fact, they "transcend all predication".

You like, can't define me, man.


You've supplied an accurate description of the devolution of knowledge into socially acceptable opinions and the attitudes towards all who oppose the devolution in pursuit of knowledge. This same mindset is largely responsible for the devolution of Christianity into secular Christendom.

The mysteries of faith are degraded if they are made into an object of affirmation and negation, when in reality they should be an object of contemplation. Simone Weil


In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs. Simone Weil


Always the need to condemn what is not understood. Some with the need have been brave enough to overlook the obvious hatred of ideas and the futility of the human condition and seek those with the need to understand as is normal for the love of wisdom. When we are willing to admit it, it is a step in the right direction.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 23rd, 2019, 2:32 pm 

Sorry about that earlier post. To obtain balance, I will make a post with no (zero) facetiousness.

On Transcendence of Predication
Emmanuel Kant was a principle writer in German existentialism (also ethics, and a logician). Kant concluded that Existence is not a real predicate. In other words, Existence , as a property , if it could be one, would transcend all predication. This was later picked up and re-iterated by Sartre. Martin Heidegger considered Kant's Existence in the context of Being. In contrasting being (lowercase) against Being (uppercase), Heidegger may very well have found something that transcends all discourse. Heidegger does contend that western philosophy had avoided the question for centuries. He seemed to have suggested this in one of his lectures , see for example : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/92307.Being_and_Time

On the Accusation that such-and-such is not `real philosophy`
Nick_A wrote:You can say so what since there is nothing but a secular perspective. However this is not philosophy nor does it represent the purpose of philosophy other than within the confines of secularism.

I would suggest anyone interested in the human purpose of philosophy to read Jacob Needleman’s book “The Heart of Philosophy.” I posted an excerpt from the intro for you to consider

Philosophy definitely goes on here. On a personal note, I tend heavily to philosophy of Science, and I write about physics and biology a lot. Some of us have dabbled in logic and foundations of math here.

In the Western Tradition , there was a troubling split between the "Continental Tradition" (Kant, Descartes, Heidegger,Nietszche) and the "Analytic Tradition" (mostly the British). I would say the accusation that we are not "doing real philosophy" on this forum is a re-hashing of a variation on the Continental/Analytic division.

On Feeling the Presence of the ONE
Unlike the earlier accusation, feeling the presence of "The Great Questions" rather than discussing them is not philosophy, or science, or any other topic subheading here. Nobody on this forum is going to feel the Presence of the ONE.

My expectation of a retort to this will be most likely come in the form : I am "emotionally rejecting" this bizarre ritual because I am "secular" or this is a "secular forum."

Okay then. Go ahead , you have the mic.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 24th, 2019, 12:03 am 

Tyksos

The question remains what Being is. Does a mineral have being? If it does, what is it. The point I’m making is that if we don’t know what Being is and consequently what life is, why should we respect it? I’m not critical that we don’t know. Simone suggested that there are those who do objectively understand these things and she wanted to be part of their kingdom. If the young are drawn to this need, why kill the need in them?

Real philosophy has the goal of wisdom. Where science seeks knowledge of the relationship between facts, Philosophy and the essence of religion seeks to feel, to become one with meaning. If meaning doesn’t come from facts, what makes the experience possible?

We agree that when the intelligence is belittled it does degrade the entire human being

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. Simone Weil


However you do not accept the limits of discursive thought. Most secularists don’t which is why they are closed to the idea of the reality above Plato’s divided line. The way to access it is through intuition made possible by stopping associtive thought and opening to conscious contemplation

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. Simone Weil


Modern philosophy stops with discursive thought which is useless for the goal of philosophy which is the experience of objective meaning making wisdom possible


Plato has said that knowledge is above the line and opinions below it. The philosopher strives for the experience of truth above the line. But when modern philosophy closes the path for the young through metaphysical repression I lose interest. Spirit killing is not all that attractive

Facts are one thing and meaning is another. Denying either defeats the purpose of philosophy

Feeling the presence of the ONE takes place at the depth of our being which is outside the realm of the senses but is a more real part of human Being.

Philosophy is remembrance. It doesn't deny intelligence but enables the intelligence to become an expression of universal meaning as opposed to societal pragmatism.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 24th, 2019, 12:44 am 

Hyksos -

In the Western Tradition , there was a troubling split between the "Continental Tradition" (Kant, Descartes, Heidegger,Nietszche) and the "Analytic Tradition" (mostly the British). I would say the accusation that we are not "doing real philosophy" on this forum is a re-hashing of a variation on the Continental/Analytic division.


Yes. It does appear that some promising discussions are cut short by an overly “dogmatic” scientific sensibility. By this I mean if a post is deemed nonsense by some the thread is either “locked” or shifted to a forum in the shadows of this site.

I’ve no idea why the recent post about an expanded thought of Nietzsche’s hypothetical was locked? They is from my view a too string inclination to focus on what doesn’t make sense rather than to try and make sense. Perhaps it would make more sense to call this “The Science and Philosophy of Science Forum”. In that sense it is a fair statement to say “philosophical discourse,” or rather the potential of it, is being partially inhibited by a staunch “analytical” tilt as you put it.

I don’t see how pushing newcomers to the sidelines helps without giving them a few months to feel their way around the ideas each of us have.

Nick -

I don’t know how to talk to you yet, but it does seem we’ve got some common interests. There has always been a deep suspicion on this forum about anyone whi sounds even remotely “religious”. I think Hyksos has pointed out well enough that whether you are “religious” or not you’ve certainly not been “preaching” but rather asking questions - I do feel you’ve missed soem of the replies or rather found the replies wanting though; if so, it’s up to you to reframe them so can get better answers.

I’m always interested in the ideas of people who find themselves at odds with those they’re trying to converse with.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 24th, 2019, 9:58 am 

BJ

I’ve no idea why the recent post about an expanded thought of Nietzsche’s hypothetical was locked? They is from my view a too string inclination to focus on what doesn’t make sense rather than to try and make sense. Perhaps it would make more sense to call this “The Science and Philosophy of Science Forum”. In that sense it is a fair statement to say “philosophical discourse,” or rather the potential of it, is being partially inhibited by a staunch “analytical” tilt as you put it.


Yes, this is how i was fooled. It was an honest mistake. In terms of philosophy, the philosophy of science seems to deny what Plato called teaching philosophy.

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus
.

The philosophy of science deals with external marks while philosophy deals with "calling things to remembrance"

The philosophy of science is intolerant of the paradox which as Kierkegaard wrote is the passion of philosophy

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.”

― Soren Kierkegaard


I agree it would be better to change the name to the Philosophy of Science to avoid those who relish in the paradox and know that objective human meaning is found above Plato's divided line rather than the domain of the senses in which facts are by definition meaningless..
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 24th, 2019, 12:18 pm 

BJ

I don’t know how to talk to you yet, but it does seem we’ve got some common interests. There has always been a deep suspicion on this forum about anyone whi sounds even remotely “religious”. I think Hyksos has pointed out well enough that whether you are “religious” or not you’ve certainly not been “preaching” but rather asking questions - I do feel you’ve missed soem of the replies or rather found the replies wanting though; if so, it’s up to you to reframe them so can get better answers.


What replies have I missed which had to do with the question of a thread? For example the Beauty thread asks a particular question which has been ignored. Does your attraction to beauty primarily lead you into the world of fragmentation or open you to the question of the reality beauty masks? People seem only concerned with what they find beautiful.

Conscience is a thread inviting speculation as to the reality of emotional quality. We all accept the reality of objective intellectual quality and the scientific method but standard definitions of emotional quality are limited to secular worldly responses. Einstein distinguished between worldly animal emotions and "feelings" which connect us to higher consciousness but is not welcomed on a scientific philosophy site which by definition must remain closed to the reality above Plato's divided line which is the source of "feelings." Give me an example of what I've avoided so I know what the concern is.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417


Atheism and science are purifications for religion and philosophy. That is why science must be a part of philosophy. Science must be included in philosophy but when science excludes the purpose of philosophy and the essence of religion it becomes a dangerous spirit killer difficult for our species to survive.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 26th, 2019, 1:26 am 

The question remains what Being is. Does a mineral have being? If it does, what is it. The point I’m making is that if we don’t know what Being is and consequently what life is, why should we respect it? I’m not critical that we don’t know.

I will speak for myself. Abortion is unethical. Yes. Full on. No secrets. No denials.

It should be rare. I am open completely to talking about ways to make it more rare. (Not to speak for others, but I would hope that nobody on this forum adopts the position that abortion procedures should be handed out like candy.)

Yes it is unethical and my conscience feels this. Late-term abortion is horrendous and an insult to conscience and I feel this. Okay?

But wake up to rationality -- We are dealing with choosing between two unethical choices. This is a choice between two evils. There will be no happy ending -- no satisfying resolution. Hollywood movies and TV and fantasy have happy endings. The real world sometimes does not. The real world is composed of warring nations states, nuclear weapons, children dying of cancer, crime, poverty, desperation and human misery.

There are no right and wrong answers to all of ethics in some sort of amorphous Platonic Realm waiting above us across a "PLato's dividing line."

In a strong , conversational attempt to reciprocate with your worries, I even said on this forum to you that those gynos who perform late-term do it extremely rarely. One of the gynos even said they have never in their professional life been approached for a late-term procedure for "elective reasons". (every. single. one. of them was a medical problem.) You ignored that post wholesale. This mass infanticide that you believe is taking place outside your window because "secular society does not respect life" is not happening. It is not manifest.

I am repeating this again --- and why am I repeating it again? I hear you loud and clear I understand you loud and clear and I am responding to your worries that "there is no reason to respect life". I get it. I got it days ago. Now would you make some sort of attempt to respond to what I write? Otherwise I risk repeating myself a third time.

Simone suggested that there are those who do objectively understand these things and she wanted to be part of their kingdom. If the young are drawn to this need, why kill the need in them?

Objective understanding requires discourse and predication : two things which you seem hell-bent on tossing out the window.

Real philosophy has the goal of wisdom. Where science seeks knowledge of the relationship between facts, Philosophy and the essence of religion seeks to feel, to become one with meaning.

I already specifically and directly addressed this earlier.

At best, you are equivocating "real philosophy" with continental european philosophy. At worse, you are just equivocating all philosophy with ethics. (As I have remarked before already on this forum) I have seriously thought that every one of your threads should be moved to the Ethics section here. While Ethics is a large and active sub-discipline in philosophy , it is wrong to call it "real philosophy" or to pretend like all other branches of philosophy are just "factual science".

However you do not accept the limits of discursive thought. Most secularists don’t which is why they are closed to the idea of the reality above Plato’s divided line. The way to access it is through intuition made possible by stopping associtive thought and opening to conscious contemplation

No, I am not closed off to anything. I am totally aware that human beings engage in rituals. I am also aware of the many Eastern traditions that include meditation in their canon of rituals.

The word "conscience" is contained in the United Nations charter on the Declaration of Human Rights.
Modern philosophy stops with discursive thought which is useless for the goal of philosophy which is the experience of objective meaning making wisdom possible

Plato has said that knowledge is above the line and opinions below it. The philosopher strives for the experience of truth above the line. But when modern philosophy closes the path for the young through metaphysical repression I lose interest. Spirit killing is not all that attractive

Feeling the presence of the ONE takes place at the depth of our being which is outside the realm of the senses but is a more real part of human Being.

This is not philosophy, and it doesn't even rise to Ethics. This is a philosophy forum. You are not being repressed because the "Secular mods cannot deal with my insights" or because we "disagree with you". If you are silenced, or your threads are moved into odds-and-ends it is solely on your posts like this.

This is not a cooking forum or a forum where people talk about lifting weights, working out and keto, nor do we talk about guns here or video games.

There are a million internet forums where you can go talk about prayer. There are a million internet forums where you can go and talk to people about eastern meditation and chakras and transcendence and nirvana. Don't let me stop you. Go there and talk about how to gain access to the ONE.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby hyksos on March 26th, 2019, 1:41 am 

It does appear that some promising discussions are cut short by an overly “dogmatic” scientific sensibility. By this I mean if a post is deemed nonsense by some the thread is either “locked” or shifted to a forum in the shadows of this site.
Perhaps it would make more sense to call this “The Science and Philosophy of Science Forum”. In that sense it is a fair statement to say “philosophical discourse,” or rather the potential of it, is being partially inhibited by a staunch “analytical” tilt as you put it.

Do not be bewitched. There is no inhibition , censoring, or "cutting short" going on here.

Consider what Nick_A has actually posted. Nick_A is not saying that he engages in a particular branch of philosophy, or that he has a particular personal approach and healthy respect for ethicists doing ethics, and respect for the analytic tradition in its own right. Merely he is just a "good ol' guy" working away in his little corner not bothering anybody.

This is not what he has written on this forum.

Nick_A has flatly stated that the way he does philosophy is the only valid philosophy that exists. Everything else is not "real philosophy" (his exact and repeated phrase). He is not reciprocating or extending respect to other discplines. It is his way or the highway.

He has not adopted a courteous social excuse, for example, "I am not talking about that topic in this thread , and so make another thread to avoid de-railing this one." No. Instead , it is one ultimatum after the next that you play by his rules that he sets down in his own threads, or you will be deemed a philosophical imposter. You will be told that you are not properly "seeking Wisdom". You will be sneered at as "secularist" or you will be told that your "mind is closed off" from his genius insights.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
TheVat liked this post


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 26th, 2019, 2:45 am 

Hyksos -

You shouldn’t allow yourself to be so “bewitched” then eh? Perhaps a mute response serves your purposes? If not keep feeding the beast and maybe you’ll come across a viand that placates ;)

Good luck in your endeavors.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby TheVat on March 26th, 2019, 10:03 am 

The philosophy of science is intolerant of the paradox which as Kierkegaard wrote is the passion of philosophy...


What philosophers of science have you read, and please cite examples of the intolerance you speak of.

I'll wait.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 27th, 2019, 12:26 am 

TheVat » March 26th, 2019, 10:03 am wrote:
The philosophy of science is intolerant of the paradox which as Kierkegaard wrote is the passion of philosophy...


What philosophers of science have you read, and please cite examples of the intolerance you speak of.

I'll wait.


Take Richard Dawkins as an example:

It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself. Richard Dawkins


Does this appear tolerant of Christianity to you? Clearly he has no conception of the purpose of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as they pertain to the evolution of human being. There is nothing wrong with a person admitting that they do not see the sense of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection but to express his ignorance in such an intolerant fashion just indicates Dawkins has blocked himself off from understanding.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 27th, 2019, 1:07 am 

Hyksos

Nick_A has flatly stated that the way he does philosophy is the only valid philosophy that exists. Everything else is not "real philosophy" (his exact and repeated phrase). He is not reciprocating or extending respect to other discplines. It is his way or the highway.


Philosophy is the pursuit of the love of wisdom. We cn have philosophies of science, of education, of business etc but they are all restricted to their specialty. Real philosophy has to be inclusive of all our connections with the extenal world including remembrance.

He has not adopted a courteous social excuse, for example, "I am not talking about that topic in this thread , and so make another thread to avoid de-railing this one." No. Instead , it is one ultimatum after the next that you play by his rules that he sets down in his own threads, or you will be deemed a philosophical imposter. You will be told that you are not properly "seeking Wisdom". You will be sneered at as "secularist" or you will be told that your "mind is closed off" from his genius insights.


When have I called you names? What are these ultimatums and their threats of persecution?

I value the concept of the Socratic dialogue which has the goal of revealing what we know in the context of what we don't know. A person can come to understand through the Socratic dialogue that even though they have selective knowledge, they have no knowledge of the wholeness responsible for selective knowledge and their associated opinions. Not many are capable of the humility necessary to participate in a Socratic dialogue

Secularism is a term associated with life within the domain of Plato's cave. Why sneer at it? I find the universalist approach for more sensible for my desire to understand the objective purpose of our universe and Man within it. It is more likely that you would sneer at me.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 27th, 2019, 3:02 am 

Nick -

Secularism is a term associated with life within the domain of Plato's cave. Why sneer at it? I find the universalist approach for more sensible for my desire to understand the objective purpose of our universe and Man within it. It is more likely that you would sneer at me.


Is it? Are you sure? Or could it be the very opposite and that Plato was referring to the delusion of religious ideologies that painted the world as the playground of the Greek Gods whom Socrates refuted as immoral and reprehensible entities due to be imperfect and full of flaws?

It is interesting that on the one hand Socrates is regarded as one of the first historic atheists and also that Plato’s ideas were taken up in the Christian narrative.

If you are pursuing “wisdom” then is it all possible you’re judgement on this matter could be wrong and, more importantly, that you’ll maybe never be able to know for certain one way or the other?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 27th, 2019, 3:21 am 

Nick -

If you want a fuller picture of my thoughts on “ethical” issues look here:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=47&t=32281&p=337967&hilit=Hypothetical#p337967
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby davidm on March 27th, 2019, 10:29 am 

Nick_A » March 26th, 2019, 10:26 pm wrote:
TheVat » March 26th, 2019, 10:03 am wrote:
The philosophy of science is intolerant of the paradox which as Kierkegaard wrote is the passion of philosophy...


What philosophers of science have you read, and please cite examples of the intolerance you speak of.

I'll wait.


Take Richard Dawkins as an example:


Dawkins is not a philosopher, of science or anything else.

Try again.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 27th, 2019, 1:16 pm 

David. any scientist who defends atheism in depth is a philosopher in the modern world. Defending atheism requires the use of ideas and methods associated with philosophy in general.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby davidm on March 27th, 2019, 1:27 pm 

Nick_A » March 27th, 2019, 11:16 am wrote:David. any scientist who defends atheism in depth is a philosopher in the modern world. Defending atheism requires the use of ideas and methods associated with philosophy in general.


No, it doesn't. It just requires pointing out, as Dawkins does, that there is not a whit of evidence for any god or gods -- which is fully within the purview of scientific empiricism.

What's more, you wrote:

The philosophy of science is intolerant of ...


Thus, you indicted the entire discipline of the philosophy of science. Prove your claim.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 27th, 2019, 1:39 pm 

DAvid

No, it doesn't. It just requires pointing out, as Dawkins does, that there is not a whit of evidence for any god or gods -- which is fully within the purview of scientific empiricism.


I am suggesting that your negative attitude of denial is a perfect example of intolerance. Science cannot disprove the ONE. The question becomes if science can become so complete that it proves the necessity of a conscious source for our great universe? My guess is it will in the future.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby davidm on March 27th, 2019, 2:46 pm 

Nick_A » March 27th, 2019, 11:39 am wrote:DAvid

No, it doesn't. It just requires pointing out, as Dawkins does, that there is not a whit of evidence for any god or gods -- which is fully within the purview of scientific empiricism.


I am suggesting that your negative attitude of denial is a perfect example of intolerance. Science cannot disprove the ONE. The question becomes if science can become so complete that it proves the necessity of a conscious source for our great universe? My guess is it will in the future.


You are evading the question. You said:
The philosophy of science is intolerant of the paradox which as Kierkegaard wrote is the passion of philosophy…


TheVat responded:

What philosophers of science have you read, and please cite examples of the intolerance you speak of.

I'll wait.


You then invoked Dawkins.

I pointed out that Dawkins is not a philosopher, but specifically an evolutionary biologist, who has pointed out, correctly, that there is no evidence for the existence of God. This is not intolerance — it is a statement of fact. There is no such evidence.

Now you call me intolerant. I reply that science CANNOT disprove the evidence of your “one”; that isn’t the job of science. But it is also off the point. We are still waiting for you to support your claim that “the philosophy of science per se is “intolerant of” your beliefs. I, otoh, can name a number of philosophers of science who are quite open to religious belief, including the atheist philosopher of science Brad Monton, who wrote a book defending intelligent design and God belief.

You still have not named a single philosopher of science that you have read. If you haven't actually read any philosopher of science, then it's blatantly dishonest to claim that the philosophy of science is intolerant of religion.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 27th, 2019, 4:35 pm 

David, IYO what is the philosophy of science? If it includes belief in a conscious source for creation it is no longer just a philosophy of science.

Einstein was a scientist. He believed in science but was not restricted to it so cannot be considered just a philosopher of science. The philosophy of science must deny the laws of creation being the result of expressions from a conscious source

Intolerance by definition doesn't have to be nasty though it often is. The religious influence is not tolerated in secular progressive schools which further the philosophy of science. Its attitude of superiority is a reall spirit killer and such child abuse is nothing to be proud of.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby Nick_A on March 29th, 2019, 9:42 am 

The inability to compare the value of a late term fetus and a three day old baby proves as a whole our species lacks respect for life capable of expanding our potential for compassion.

Long before Carl Sagan wrote of compassion as our only mechanism for moving beyond “us vs. them,” Einstein writes in February of 1950, in a possibly imperfect translation:

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.


If we lack respect for the meaning and purpose of life, how can compassion for it possibly increase? Since we are as we are, everything remains s it is. Science cannot reveal meaning and the means for revealing meaning are denied by dominant secularism. Consequently only a few can adopt a universal perspective which will be crushed by the great wave of denial until it finally passes.
Nick_A
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 29th, 2019, 10:05 am 

Nick_A » March 28th, 2019, 4:35 am wrote:David, IYO what is the philosophy of science? If it includes belief in a conscious source for creation it is no longer just a philosophy of science.

Einstein was a scientist. He believed in science but was not restricted to it so cannot be considered just a philosopher of science. The philosophy of science must deny the laws of creation being the result of expressions from a conscious source

Intolerance by definition doesn't have to be nasty though it often is. The religious influence is not tolerated in secular progressive schools which further the philosophy of science. Its attitude of superiority is a reall spirit killer and such child abuse is nothing to be proud of.


This doesn’t appear to make much sense. Do a quick wiki search for Philosophy of Science.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Why Not Allow Abortion Three Days After Birth?

Postby BadgerJelly on March 29th, 2019, 10:08 am 

Nick_A » March 29th, 2019, 9:42 pm wrote:The inability to compare the value of a late term fetus and a three day old baby proves as a whole our species lacks respect for life capable of expanding our potential for compassion.

Long before Carl Sagan wrote of compassion as our only mechanism for moving beyond “us vs. them,” Einstein writes in February of 1950, in a possibly imperfect translation:

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.


If we lack respect for the meaning and purpose of life, how can compassion for it possibly increase? Since we are as we are, everything remains s it is. Science cannot reveal meaning and the means for revealing meaning are denied by dominant secularism. Consequently only a few can adopt a universal perspective which will be crushed by the great wave of denial until it finally passes.


Science isn’t interested in “meaning” directly. Our sense of meaning is complimented by our scientific understanding though. Again, perhaps you’re focused on ONE particular aspect of the philosophy of science - that is the moral problems whcih arise from rhe scientific endeavor.

Some would protest about modern art as not being “progressive” and/or science it not being “progressive” enough and a detriment to morality. Such views could just as easily be called inhibiting.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5572
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests