No, I am speaking about freedom of the will as expounded by Dr Schopenhauer in his prize-winning essay on the freedom of the will (which Einstein agreed with, saying 'I do not believe in freedom of the will').
So, no, I am not advocating chaos – I am advocating intelligence.
Keeping refuting entire posts with several quotes that in no way pertain to them nor address the issues in them.
At least you can spell ‘philosophy’ now.
Is this thread really about what we believe or about what we can KNOW and therefore not refute amongst each other endlessly?
I.e objective truths, a triangle has 3 sides, or square 4 etc.
Ah, at last - we have an intellect on our thread - someone who doesn't quote this line from Einstein as an affirmation that God exists.
He said his postition concerning god was that of an Agnostic, but rest assured that omega and half the people on here refuting posts with quotes, have never read the works of the greats they are taking them from and are, as is clearly evident, clueless as to the context they were said in.
So, if there are any intellectuals out there I will post this one last time:
Let us not turn this into a dead-thread by becoming lodge-brothers and forming a religious mob AGAINST religion.
Suffice it to say that we can here conclude that God can be neither proved or DISproved, and therefore it would be as great a folly to assert ourselves as Atheists as it would be to assert ourselves as Stout believers in any faith on the insufficient grounds of either of these suppositions!
For both assertions would surely be equally as ungrounded?
Suffice it to say, then, that we should look at 'god' in a DIFFERENT light?
I for one am inclined towards Spinoza's and Einstein’s and many of the existentialist and Transcendental philosophers 'idea' or ‘concept’ of God as an ‘impersonal God'. If a God indeed!
And indeed how can we really disagree with this - even if we BELIEVE in God - in view of a world where children starve of both food and water under the burning sun while vultures wheel overhead in wait of the faint carrion-whiff?
[hardly a sore tooth-ache!]
We are the gods of THIS world – and the devils!
And so, what can we now say anew on the basis of morality independent of a personal God, for one . . .
And any views on the freedom of the will would be most welcome to support any proposed supposition . . .
Since the freewill of which many speak - and indeed America exults as the kernel and indeed basis of civilization - simply does not exist in THAT sense.
Not only is all will bound to necessity and therefore in this sense unfree but also is made by many to serve countless evils . . . and the many serve WILLINGLY. Indeed, go forth in the vanguard with exulted cries of freedom and stout rebukes to other nations for a lack of standing for freewill? For instance ‘does YOUR country give you the freewill to . . .’.
The thing to note here is the ‘GIVE’
GIVE you the freewill!
And therefore GOVERN the ‘free’will given. Hardly freedom free-spirits!
Who over the past decade has not seen so-called Democracy becoming more communistic, more socialistic and above all!-more Dictatorial!
Free-spirits come forth!
Oh LORD! If thou art there! How much more we free-spirits KNOW there is to know.
I am so tired of stuff like this stagnating what we are intellectually aiming for. I am not even bothering.
'I do belive when God said i am he was kinda saying I do not owe you but also believe that man will be lifed up before all created beings and displayed'
I for one am not going to take this thread in this direction.
Okay, but let us not turn this into a dead-thread by becoming lodge-brothers and forming a religious mob AGAINST religion.
Suffice it to say that we can here conclude that God can be neither proved or DISproved and therefore it would be as great a folly to assert ourselves as Atheists as it would be to assert ourselves as Stout believers on the insufficent grounds of this supposition.
For both assertions would surely be equally as ungrounded?
Suffice it to say, then, that we should look at 'god' in a DIFFERENT light?
I for one believe in Spinoza's and Einstein’s and many of the existentialist and Transcendental philosophers 'idea' of God as an impersonal 'God'.
And indeed how can we really disagree with this - even if we believe in God - in view of a world where children starve of both food and water under the burning sun and the vultures wheel overhead in wait of the faint carrion-whiff?
And so, what can we now say anew on the basis of morality independent of a personal God, for one . . .
And any views on the freedom of the will would be most welcome to support any proposed supposition . . .
Since the freewill of which many speak - and indeed America exults - simply does not exist in THAT sense.
Not only is all will bound to necessity and therefore in this sense unfree but also is made by the many to serve countless evils . . . and WILLINGLY.
You mean as assertive and helpful to the human race?
Besides, she was American, she can't help it.
I, personaly, thought the Maldives were in Space near that shiny thing - you know the whatsit, the thingummy . . . dingus thing - you know? The Wossname.
If the first truth is a lie then it is not the first truth and the second truth is the first truth therefore those reading the first truth (the second truth/first truth) do not try it but have ALREADY tried it therefore the second truth is untrue and the first truth is in fact that 'the first truth is a lie.'
Therefore all people after reading 'the first truth' do NOT try it.
The greatest achievements are the simple ones: complexity lies within simplicity itself.
If you want to understand how a jumbo-jet works you look at the concept of the first plane and work your way outward from there - it's quite simple.
The problem with the world is it looks outward in, instead of inward out - and fails to understand and thinks it is something to do with an intellectual inability to grasp something increadibly complicated that is in fact simple
Like Einstien said: 'everything needs to be made as simple as possible, but not simpler!'
Man's greatest achievement was the discovery that he could generate an external source of warmth and illumination by way of friction which in its manifestation he called 'fire'.
Without it we would be dead.
His greatest achivements are his original survival tools which are the begining and the basis of civilisation and the first, foremost and most important.
Philosophy is MY religion. And Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Neitsche et al . . .
Are the GODS of my Religion: and all the gods of my religion worship each other and become stronger and wiser as they pass through time, and start to understand existence more and more! And are able to better define justice, morality, freewill, law, truth from the false, the ideal from the real etc
For all lived under the same banner:
Vitam impendere vero
'dedicate one's life to truth'
And I will share with you a quote from my own philosophy on truth! For i strive to be like the gods!
'No man who seeks the truth need fear the wrath of God, only the wrath of men - and their thus compromised constitutions'. - from my essay 'On Truth' submitted to the International Society for Philosophy
We alone are the answer here, we, WE - the philosophers!
Natural science was a branch of philosophy that is now an independent sphere of sustained inquiry.
Psychology has its seed in philosophy, and has itself branched out into psychoanalysis/phychothearapy
Philosophy is my religion and truth is the GOD that even the gods if it worship and strive to know more clearly, more dearly, and more nearly. They strive to know the truth!
But the dogmatists - the Christian dogmatists, for one - stand and kneel and stand and kneel and stand and kneel and repeat 'may we know him more clearly, more dearly, and more nearly'
'Are you capable of an original thought generated from your brain, YOUR brain? That is what i asked, and you pretty much answered the question.' she says.
I feel myself justified to attack this attack - for it is an unjustified attack.
But it is pointless indeed. For i have a feeling this woman will not be back and just entered to disrupt this thread and then pull out thinking she had rocked the world and trampled all over the intellect and wealth of knowledge of someone who is doing a PHD!
I will apologise to you also, Trish, for putting you in the middle of my Schopenhauerian Hegel-like attack on this poor woman.
Sorry.
I felt very strongly of the hypocrisy of her opinions and that she thought they could wipe out everything we were saying based on, basically, nothing and an assumption of something unstated but assumed.
But if we can put that behind us . . .
I agree with you again.
Blind faith is far from original and all the great minds learned from the great minds before them and went from there: Plato himself quotes Homer and countless others!
Schopenhauer, also, has an incredible wealth of quotes from all the great philosophers before him and added his own to the cannon!
EastbayRay Forum Posts (781)
RE: God...fact or fiction?
No, I am speaking about freedom of the will as expounded by Dr Schopenhauer in his prize-winning essay on the freedom of the will (which Einstein agreed with, saying 'I do not believe in freedom of the will').So, no, I am not advocating chaos – I am advocating intelligence.
Keeping refuting entire posts with several quotes that in no way pertain to them nor address the issues in them.
At least you can spell ‘philosophy’ now.
Is this thread really about what we believe or about what we can KNOW and therefore not refute amongst each other endlessly?
I.e objective truths, a triangle has 3 sides, or square 4 etc.