Whose Lives Have Value?

[Sy Borg]

Sy

Given that this is a forum where people debate right and wrong, debating your logical and ethical errors is not a matter of arguing for any kind of dualism. Rather, it's pointing out the obvious.

Philosophy by definition is the love of wisdom. This is not achieved by arguing the duality of secular right and wrong. That is good for TV and pop psychology but blocks the path to the experience of wisdom. As I said, there must be some here who have gone beyond arguing duality and seek to experience the higher level of consciousness which reconciles them. Maybe I'm wrong but it is worth a shot.

Philosophy is even less a reflection of theistic beliefs, embraced unquestioningly without internal challenge. That is pure superstition, which ranks well below pop psychology in terms of credibility - and that is how far you have travelled philosophically - nowhere.

You decided that the Bible and Christians were right and everyone else was wrong - based on zero evidence, purely based on what you wanted to be true and tribal hatred of lefties.

Now you have built a fragile philosophical edifice on this weak foundation, which is why forum members here can so easily expose your many inconsistencies, double-standards and unsubstantiated beliefs.

“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” Simone Weil


You won't have a clue as to the depth of the idea. Does that mean that her scientific mind and dedication to truth is misguided or that you don't understand?

Fair's fair. You have regularly shown an inability to understand points that I and others here have made. In fact, I can't remember last time you understood anything I said. It all flies over your head and you blissfully ignore it so as to quote Simone, Plato or another of your heroes.

As for the quote, it's hardly profound to notice that reality requires both creation and destruction, growth and entropy. Brahma and Shiva for the Buddhists.

The Iron Age middle eastern book of myths that you treat as gospel has its own (anthropomorphised) allegory - God and Satan - which is the most primitive and simple-minded of any conception. Christianity as a societal meme is an intellectual and spiritual laggard, a primitive form destined to be superseded ever more, rather like the coelacanth.

[Ecurb]

The Iron Age middle eastern book of myths that you treat as gospel has its own (anthropomorphised) allegory - God and Satan - which is the most primitive and simple-minded of any conception. Christianity as a societal meme is an intellectual and spiritual laggard, a primitive form destined to be superseded ever more, rather like the coelacanth.

Biologists thought the Coelacanths were extinct, until they discovered a live one at the bottom of the ocean. God and Satan are sufficiently sophisticated concepts to have inspired Dante and Milton to write two of the great Epic Poems of Rennaissance literature. Read "Paradise Lost" and then deciede if Satan is a "primitive and simple-minded" concepetion.

You are almost making Nick seem accurate in his accusations of "Woke" bigotry -- lauding Buddhism and trashing Christianity. OK, not quite. But almost.

[Sy Borg]

The Iron Age middle eastern book of myths that you treat as gospel has its own (anthropomorphised) allegory - God and Satan - which is the most primitive and simple-minded of any conception. Christianity as a societal meme is an intellectual and spiritual laggard, a primitive form destined to be superseded ever more, rather like the coelacanth.

Biologists thought the Coelacanths were extinct, until they discovered a live one at the bottom of the ocean. God and Satan are sufficiently sophisticated concepts to have inspired Dante and Milton to write two of the great Epic Poems of Rennaissance literature. Read "Paradise Lost" and then deciede if Satan is a "primitive and simple-minded" concepetion.

You are almost making Nick seem accurate in his accusations of "Woke" bigotry -- lauding Buddhism and trashing Christianity. OK, not quite. But almost.

If you want to talk about people being "woke", may I suggest Twitter, Instagram or news forums. Your claim was inaccurate enough without effectively sticking a philosophical red nose on it.

To start, coelacanths are not going to persist long into the future, as stated. Nothing you said contradicts me. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ex ... xtinction/

My point was: forms that were once effective often fail to be so in future time, with newer forms being better adapted. Hence extinctions. Hence defunct religions (there are many).

In context, Satan is a problematic anthropomorphism of phenomena. Natural disasters? Blame Satan. Immature and dangerous people? Blame Satan. Death? Blame Satan. Entropy? Might as well blame Satan too. Yet there is no need to personalise the impersonal, especially given how often Biblical metaphors are taken literally by a growing number of fundamentalists - which has societal implications.

That Buddhist conceptions are more sophisticated than Abrahamic ones is no endorsement of the former, as you claimed without substance. Abrahamic religions tend to be more emotional and tribal while Eastern creeds are more cerebral and inclusive. Still, as with Abrahamic religions, Buddhists make many spurious claims.

[Nick_A]

Sy



Philosophy by definition is the love of wisdom. This is not achieved by arguing the duality of secular right and wrong. That is good for TV and pop psychology but blocks the path to the experience of wisdom. As I said, there must be some here who have gone beyond arguing duality and seek to experience the higher level of consciousness which reconciles them. Maybe I'm wrong but it is worth a shot.

Philosophy is even less a reflection of theistic beliefs, embraced unquestioningly without internal challenge. That is pure superstition, which ranks well below pop psychology in terms of credibility - and that is how far you have travelled philosophically - nowhere.

Typical dualistic secularism. Theism requires a belief in a Source. Your attitude denies Plato's Good and Plotinus ONE: the foundation of philosophy. Lovers of wisdom don't argue like egoists do. They strive to experience conscious contemplation or the path to wisdom. You prefer to argue as does modern philosophy

You decided that the Bible and Christians were right and everyone else was wrong - based on zero evidence, purely based on what you wanted to be true and tribal hatred of lefties.

You don't know how to read the Bible. Often it appears intentionally wrong. Its meaning is revealed in the contradictions. The Bible is a psychological rather than a historical thread. It requires an open mind to understand the contradictions which is seemingly impossible for the secular dualistic mind. You will probably argue with a Zen koan. It would not dawn on you that it is intentionally written as it is.

Now you have built a fragile philosophical edifice on this weak foundation, which is why forum members here can so easily expose your many inconsistencies, double-standards and unsubstantiated beliefs.

Nothing has been exposed. No one can answer the question of the thread. That is normal. The source of biblical truths are above Plato's Divided line and requires opening the mind to existence beyond the senses. Those like GE deny Plato and Plotinus and existence beyond the senses

“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” Simone Weil


You won't have a clue as to the depth of the idea. Does that mean that her scientific mind and dedication to truth is misguided or that you don't understand?

Fair's fair. You have regularly shown an inability to understand points that I and others here have made. In fact, I can't remember last time you understood anything I said. It all flies over your head and you blissfully ignore it so as to quote Simone, Plato or another of your heroes.

As for the quote, it's hardly profound to notice that reality requires both creation and destruction, growth and entropy. Brahma and Shiva for the Buddhists.

No, reality requires three forces, not the two and their various forms you mention

The Iron Age middle eastern book of myths that you treat as gospel has its own (anthropomorphised) allegory - God and Satan - which is the most primitive and simple-minded of any conception. Christianity as a societal meme is an intellectual and spiritual laggard, a primitive form destined to be superseded ever more, rather like the coelacanth.

The Great Beast will destroy man made Christendom but Christianity is a perennial tradition so outlasts the Great Beast. All you've written about is anti Trump and some weird conceptions of Christianity. What is hard to understand?

If you understood Christianity you would know whose lives have value. Since you don't, the only alternative for you is might making right defining human value. Blind belief in Oprah won't cut it

The value of the thread for me is proving the difficulty of answering the thread question without going berzerk. Revealing but scary at the same time.

[Nick_A]

The fashionable trend is to claim that white people lack value and too stupid to realize it. Stupidity proves white people lack value

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-tu ... ing-racism

In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they “were taught to treat everyone the same,” that they are “color-blind,” that they “don’t care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted.” They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more “salient” issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it.....................?

Man as a whole doesn't know the objective value of life so seeks to define whose life has value from a secular transient social perspective. White people drew the short end of the straw so we are stuck with the educated Sociologists denying objective values.

I hope Robin at least has a cute butt to partially compensate for fashionable anti-white racism

How does this respond to what others have written? Is your cognitive dissonance intentional, or so chronic you're not even aware of it? To avoid valid objections you simply start another thread within a thread repeating what you said a thousand times...but people still respond to village idiots, that being the only reason you're still here. Attention, no matter how justifiably critical, like bad publicity, is better than no attention. If you don't like it, ignore it, is your policy on debate forums.

People have responded to the question of the thread by might makes right. I agree this is the secular way regardless of all the wonderful platitudes about peace and love. I was hoping to meet someone here who understands the universal perspective. Not yet. But who knows what the future may bring. If I cannot meet such people then I will be gone. If I can learn where they have gone to, I will follow them

[Tegularius]

The Iron Age middle eastern book of myths that you treat as gospel has its own (anthropomorphised) allegory - God and Satan - which is the most primitive and simple-minded of any conception. Christianity as a societal meme is an intellectual and spiritual laggard, a primitive form destined to be superseded ever more, rather like the coelacanth.

Biologists thought the Coelacanths were extinct, until they discovered a live one at the bottom of the ocean. God and Satan are sufficiently sophisticated concepts to have inspired Dante and Milton to write two of the great Epic Poems of Rennaissance literature. Read "Paradise Lost" and then deciede if Satan is a "primitive and simple-minded" concepetion.

You are almost making Nick seem accurate in his accusations of "Woke" bigotry -- lauding Buddhism and trashing Christianity. OK, not quite. But almost.

Just because they were given literary sophistication, especially in these two works, doesn't mean their theistic origins weren't based on a simple and universal good and evil paradigm. If this is your logic then you could just as easily have named some Hollywood movies where Satan or suchlike character is depicted as a highly cultured, urbane individual, though supernaturally evil. There was no Satan like Milton's ever depicted; he, in effect, recreated him as a much more magisterial entity more in tune with human behaviour than either Jesus or his on-sided Father who pale in comparison as characters in the poem.

[GE Morton]

I explained to steve that he doesn't know any individuals and to Sy why Man as a whole is not attracted to wisdom. So I'll ask you: what is an individual as opposed to an atom of the Great Beast and why humanity lacks wisdom prompting Socrates to say "I know nothing"?

Well, that's two questions. I can tell you what an individual is, but draw no comparison with or distinction between an individual and an "atom of the Great Beast," since the latter phrase is meaningless.

As to why humanity "lacks wisdom," that is a subjective judgment on your part, no doubt resting on some spurious definition of "wisdom" you've contrived --- one that equates "wisdom" with acceptance of certain vacuous and incoherent beliefs. I agree that humanity "as a whole" is not terribly wise, but most of them are wise enough to recognize utter nonsense when they see it.

Without such knowledge you actually believe you would know whose lives have value.

Oh, I think we've adequately covered the value question. What value any person's life has depends on the valuer, value being a relation between a person, the valuer, and something in which he he has taken an interest. Hence they are subjective. You, of course, claim that values are objective, but so far have provided no method of determining whether propositions of the form, "P has value V," are true or false. If that is indeterminable, then propositions of that sort are non-cognitive --- i.e., more nonsense.

[Tegularius]

The fashionable trend is to claim that white people lack value and too stupid to realize it. Stupidity proves white people lack value

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-tu ... ing-racism

In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they “were taught to treat everyone the same,” that they are “color-blind,” that they “don’t care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted.” They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more “salient” issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it.....................?

Man as a whole doesn't know the objective value of life so seeks to define whose life has value from a secular transient social perspective. White people drew the short end of the straw so we are stuck with the educated Sociologists denying objective values.

I hope Robin at least has a cute butt to partially compensate for fashionable anti-white racism

How does this respond to what others have written? Is your cognitive dissonance intentional, or so chronic you're not even aware of it? To avoid valid objections you simply start another thread within a thread repeating what you said a thousand times...but people still respond to village idiots, that being the only reason you're still here. Attention, no matter how justifiably critical, like bad publicity, is better than no attention. If you don't like it, ignore it, is your policy on debate forums.

People have responded to the question of the thread by might makes right. I agree this is the secular way regardless of all the wonderful platitudes about peace and love. I was hoping to meet someone here who understands the universal perspective. Not yet. But who knows what the future may bring. If I cannot meet such people then I will be gone. If I can learn where they have gone to, I will follow them

Nothing was mentioned about "might makes right". No idea what you're referring to. You will NEVER meet the kind of people you wish to meet since there are always differences which require compromise, a quality which for you would be a dealbreaker.

[Sy Borg]

The Iron Age middle eastern book of myths that you treat as gospel has its own (anthropomorphised) allegory - God and Satan - which is the most primitive and simple-minded of any conception. Christianity as a societal meme is an intellectual and spiritual laggard, a primitive form destined to be superseded ever more, rather like the coelacanth.

The Great Beast will destroy man made Christendom but Christianity is a perennial tradition so outlasts the Great Beast. All you've written about is anti Trump and some weird conceptions of Christianity. What is hard to understand?

If you understood Christianity you would know whose lives have value. Since you don't, the only alternative for you is might making right defining human value. Blind belief in Oprah won't cut it

The value of the thread for me is proving the difficulty of answering the thread question without going berzerk. Revealing but scary at the same time.

Self-indulgent twaddle, riddled with misrepresentations. Please try not to go berserk. It's just a forum. People are allowed to disagree with you. We're not playing for sheep stations, so to speak.

The issue is all quite simple. So whose lives have value?

Who decides? Everyone does. Everyone has opinions about who matters most to them - friends, family, pets, and so on.

In terms of wider society, though, the powerful decide who has value by their spending choices, be they governmental or private.

If one believes in a deity, however, then She will obviously be more powerful than mere humans, no matter how much influence they wield in the pitifully short span of a human lifetime. So, in this schema, the deity will decide.

If, of course, one does not believe in that deity, then the latter conception is not of use. This is where we are up to at present.

[Steve3007]

The value of the thread for me is proving the difficulty of answering the thread question without going berzerk.

As Sy says, there's no need to go berzerk. Chill. We're not playing for sheep stations. (I haven't googled that yet but it sounds like it must be a classic Aussie expression. I always love an expression that I've never heard before but where it's instantly obvious what it means.) Just ask yourself why you're the only person in the 34 pages of this topic who has been unable to answer the question that forms the title. Don't you value anybody's life?

[Belindi]

Nick wrote:

If you understood Christianity you would know whose lives have value. Since you don't, the only alternative for you is might making right defining human value.

If you understand Christianity you will understand that Xianity is loaded to value more the poor, the downtrodden, and the dispossessed.

[Sy Borg]

Nick wrote:

If you understood Christianity you would know whose lives have value. Since you don't, the only alternative for you is might making right defining human value.

If you understand Christianity you will understand that Xianity is loaded to value more the poor, the downtrodden, and the dispossessed.

It seems that Christian charity has been trumped by the prosperity gospel.

[Sy Borg]

Chill. We're not playing for sheep stations. (I haven't googled that yet but it sounds like it must be a classic Aussie expression. I always love an expression that I've never heard before but where it's instantly obvious what it means.)

Not sure how prevalent it is. A friend used to say it back in the 70s or 80s. Also, if handing someone a drink or other intoxicant he might say, "Wrap your laughing gear around this".

But these are just the shenanigans of non-valuable people, according to some ;)

[Belindi]

Nick wrote:

If you understood Christianity you would know whose lives have value. Since you don't, the only alternative for you is might making right defining human value.

If you understand Christianity you will understand that Xianity is loaded to value more the poor, the downtrodden, and the dispossessed.

It seems that Christian charity has been trumped by the prosperity gospel.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave can be understood to glorify philosopher kings, men who have been blessed with supernatural insight into reality. (I understand this as in the Hellenistic influence upon Judaism at the time of Jesus).The outlook for such men is they will become dictators or the acolytes of dictators.Of course dictators are not all politicians. Some modern dictators are the very rich or influential media kings.

[GE Morton]

In terms of wider society, though, the powerful decide who has value by their spending choices, be they governmental or private.

Everyone reveals their values via their spending choices, "powerful" or not.