This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

The Heretic

Members
  • Content count

    4,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Blog Comments posted by The Heretic


  1. Incidentally, these blogs should be on the forum to inspire discussion.

    As I see it, Christianity is nothing alike it was during the mid to late 19th century and the current fundamentalist variant. The early feminists were working with a liberal strain of Christianity, whereas modern Christians are reactionaries that are rebelling against modernity in their fundamentalist attitudes.


  2. Hah, funny. I always check Urban dictionary daily for new slang. :)

    Regarding christianity, we use a single label for a large variety of denominations held together in a loose family of sub-traditions.

    A Baptist chapel in Georgia has very little in common with an Eastern Orthodox in Romania with the blazing candles & rich ikons. Two places with diverse services: one plain and hymn and Bible reading, praying and impassionate preaching, while the other has more rituals, processions, chanting, mysterious ceremonies in the light behind the screen where ikons hang, concealing most of the priestly activities.

    Each faith is found in a number of countries and gain color from each region. German Lutheranism is different from the American; Ukrainian Catholicism from Irish; Greek Orthodoxy from Russian. Each religion has permeated & been permeated by a bunch of diverse cultures. This adds to the richness of human experience, but it also kibosh the problem of thinking and feeling about the variety of faiths as a single label, for they're more complicated than a single definition. We aren't just dealing with traditions - we also deal with subtraditions themselves.

    Moreover a person within one family of subtraditions may find a subtradition of another family closer than one or two in her own family (the same thing takes place in human families, how marriage works).

    One may have more in common with Buddhists in Sri Lanka & feel much closer to them than one may have with groups from one's own family of Christianity.

    1 person likes this

  3. There is a divine meaning, GUEST, and it's just for fun! :) No false dichotomies shall be tolerated here. :mrgreen:Looks like a good hook for an opener. More, please.


  4. All Blue, Ayer was limiting his comments to sensory data, because he is arguing that the only verifiable sentences must have sensory contents in them. He is not talking about the misuse of language, or miscommunication. He isn't in the business of explaining deviant uses of language, but merely which set of sentences, or propositions, are meaningful, or true, and that always consists of "sense-contents" and moreover, including reference to human bodies that experience them. This section leads to the criterion of meaning or significance, or the principle of verifiability (i think). Ayer's sole project in this book was to import the philosophy of logical positivism (established by the Vienna Circle) to an American/British audience. By keeping the big project in mind, you'll be able to follow Ayer easier, and see where he's going before he arrives at his conclusions. :)Guest, you remind me of a typical stereotype F. H. Bradley lampooned:The man who insists that philosophy is impossible is a brother philosopher with rival first principles. :(

    2 people like this
  5. New features


    Crap! What's the use of a rep point without a follow-up, be it a zesty zinger or a big wet smooch?

  6. New features


    Can we comment while giving out reputation points? Or is that permanently disabled?

    1 person likes this
  7. Why history of Philosophy?


    Parody, sometimes, the argument isn't enough. It could contain premises that has specific terminology, which assumes a body of knowledge the reader must be familiar with, in order to fully understand it. Sometimes it's not just an argument, but a full blown essay, a doctrine. The argument is just a snapshot of the entire system, and a sound-bite for people who don't have the time to comb through the volume of philosophy. For example, a recent thread on Berkeley went into a specific argument. However, there was no excerpt of berkeley, no real analysis of the terms offered. For all we know, we ended up discussing the poster's quick-n-easy interpretation of a passage, rather than Berkeley's philosophy. An argument isn't enough when we're doing philosophical analysis. We need to understand it first - be familiar with the context, what system of philosophy was this philosopher arguing against, what loaded concept was he using, or distorting, and so forth.

  8. Why 'do' philosophy?


    Only an American would say that. B)The etymology of Irony comes from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance.

  9. Why 'do' philosophy?


    Were you talking about Socrates' objection that, despite the Oracle's claim that he was the wisest man alive, he knew nothing? That was part of his ironic charm. To make a generalization about philosophy from this one ironic statement is somewhat silly.

  10. Why history of Philosophy?


    Some people want to encourage the notion of progress in the history of philosophy, and such motivations spur them to determine which ideas have been rejected by the court of history and move on. Why re-invent the wheel, say? Why reintroduce the mind-body dualism, when it has had its day in the sun and has been replaced by more sophisticated models?Perhaps to save time better spent on more productive work - such as speculating new ideas or refining current ones.

    1 person likes this

  11. Just because the words shalom and salaam are older translations of an english word, that does not mean they are identical to the modern concept of peace.


  12. Exercises. I already posted my first chapter in the Creative Writing forum. Do you have any thoughts about decadence? Even the Hellenistic Greeks thought they considered their time inferior to earlier and more blissful times:

    "The men of early times were better than we and nearer to the Gods." Philebus, 16c

  13. Thanks for the comment, Niven!I wonder about the unconscious intentions I may be holding when I write dialogue, particularly for Kaeli, the most naive of the gods. Yet this naivete may be the key to her being the most "human" of the lot, that her naivete allows her to hope. She is not encrusted with years of bitterness. On the other hand, Iz'rael's pessimistic wisdom is less his own, than the general prevailing ideology of the gods that's set as a foil to the optimism of Kaeli. That means I didn't personalize the pessimism. Got a way to go.