You have made 3 statements but what is your point? Do you have a point?Present awareness wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 10:36 amChristians believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit as it’s sometimes called. Eastern philosophers point to the same phenomenon of energy which permeates through all lifeforms and call it life force. They are both pointing to the same thing, but giving it different names.h_k_s wrote: ↑August 12th, 2020, 9:35 pm
What you said sounds like Buddhism.
Aristotle and Jesus did not comment on Buddhism.
I appreciate some of the rules of Buddhism, like the 5 forbidden professions.
Other than that I don't comment on Buddhism because I have not studied it in depth nor am I interested.
The general gist of all the Eastern Asian philosophies is to go with the flow and fit in. This is merely environmental. Places in Asia like India and China have always been teeming with masses of people therefore it is natural for those views to have crept into the Eastern Asian philosophies. I however have no use for them.
Who dies at the moment of death?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
No one is claiming that they are equally right. But you will get no where if you pretend objectivity. All you will have is two competing so-called objective views, with both parties claiming rights. What you need, is a recognition and understanding as to why people hold different views before you can move on and agree values.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 3:02 pmWe know that different subjects hold different values. The question is whether we can progress beyond that point, to where we can say that the policeman's values were wrong. The goal is to change those values. If all we can say is that everyone's values are equally subjective and therefore equally right, then what have you left us with?
On the case itself, Do you think it just a co-incidence that the killer already knew Floyd?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
The reason that people hold different views are many. But the reason that views change is objective facts.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 5:36 pmNo one is claiming that they are equally right. But you will get no where if you pretend objectivity. All you will have is two competing so-called objective views, with both parties claiming rights. What you need, is a recognition and understanding as to why people hold different views before you can move on and agree values.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 3:02 pm
We know that different subjects hold different values. The question is whether we can progress beyond that point, to where we can say that the policeman's values were wrong. The goal is to change those values. If all we can say is that everyone's values are equally subjective and therefore equally right, then what have you left us with?
If that played a role then it will be addressed in the trial (again, objective facts).
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
Name one, and justify why this is relevant!Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 10:51 pmThe reason that people hold different views are many. But the reason that views change is objective facts.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 5:36 pm
No one is claiming that they are equally right. But you will get no where if you pretend objectivity. All you will have is two competing so-called objective views, with both parties claiming rights. What you need, is a recognition and understanding as to why people hold different views before you can move on and agree values.
Again, objective not relevant. And since this "objective fact" is going to be related by defence and prosecution (two different accounts) to a jury and judge, it immediately looses any objectivity, being neither understood objectively by council and not heard objectively by judge and jury.
You do understand this? y/n?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
Eastern religions are feminine/passive : western religions are masculine/ active.And BTW Islam is western as is Judaism.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 10:36 amChristians believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit as it’s sometimes called. Eastern philosophers point to the same phenomenon of energy which permeates through all lifeforms and call it life force. They are both pointing to the same thing, but giving it different names.h_k_s wrote: ↑August 12th, 2020, 9:35 pm
What you said sounds like Buddhism.
Aristotle and Jesus did not comment on Buddhism.
I appreciate some of the rules of Buddhism, like the 5 forbidden professions.
Other than that I don't comment on Buddhism because I have not studied it in depth nor am I interested.
The general gist of all the Eastern Asian philosophies is to go with the flow and fit in. This is merely environmental. Places in Asia like India and China have always been teeming with masses of people therefore it is natural for those views to have crept into the Eastern Asian philosophies. I however have no use for them.
Buddhism is the exception and is not a religion in the sense of having any deity, it's therapy and education for living well.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
The BLM movement was driven by videos that individuals took on their cell phones and the examples of police misbehavior that were reported in the news. Objective facts force people to change views. It makes them aware of things that used to go unnoticed or were easily disregarded.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 4:32 amName one, and justify why this is relevant!Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 10:51 pm
The reason that people hold different views are many. But the reason that views change is objective facts.
The facts about the Civil War monuments and what they actually represent has changed people's views about the statues of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The prior view, that the Civil War was all about "state's rights" has changed when confronted with the objective facts (the only state's right that was at issue was the right to own slaves).
Not to mention the problem of courts convicting a black man of a crime with a white witness and an all-white jury. But this too has been changed with objective evidence.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 4:32 am And since this "objective fact" is going to be related by defence and prosecution (two different accounts) to a jury and judge, it immediately looses any objectivity, being neither understood objectively by council and not heard objectively by judge and jury.
You do understand this? y/n?
You may have seen the video that the black man took of a woman in Central Park when he politely asked her to leash her dog in a wildlife sanctuary area that was posted with a sign telling everyone to keep their dogs on a leash. The white woman called the police and claimed a black man was threatening her and her dog. But the objective facts were on the black man's phone. There were also videos of white women calling the police about a black girl selling lemonade and other similar examples that were reported in the news.
"Ah if by some gift he gi' us to see ourselves as others see us". Thank you Steve Jobs for the iPhone.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
No. Again. The appearance of black oppression on phones is a good example of selective bias. It is not known from this source if this represents a typical or statistically significant phenomenon. I think it may well be , but the source of my thinking on this is not "objective" in any sense.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 6:47 amThe BLM movement was driven by videos that individuals took on their cell phones and the examples of police misbehavior that were reported in the news. Objective facts force people to change views. It makes them aware of things that used to go unnoticed or were easily disregarded.
No again. You are just shoe-horning your own views and pretending they are objective. Historical monuments exist for diverse reasons.
The facts about the Civil War monuments and what they actually represent has changed people's views about the statues of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The prior view, that the Civil War was all about "state's rights" has changed when confronted with the objective facts (the only state's right that was at issue was the right to own slaves).
Your prejudice knows no boundsNot to mention the problem of courts convicting a black man of a crime with a white witness and an all-white jury. But this too has been changed with objective evidence.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 4:32 am And since this "objective fact" is going to be related by defence and prosecution (two different accounts) to a jury and judge, it immediately looses any objectivity, being neither understood objectively by council and not heard objectively by judge and jury.
You do understand this? y/n?
And your blindness of pretended objectivirty is impenetrable.
A black man is perfectly capable of bias too. The complexion of the jury should not matter if facts were objective - bit of course they are not.
Nothing concerning the previous acquaintance of the killer and Floyd could ever be presented objectively except the bare minimum; " they once worked at the same club". Any attempt to describe that meeting brings the evidence into the subjective realm of the speaker and the listener. The prosecution may make much of it - the defence will probably trivialise it. The jury will line it up against what they see as their "objective" prejudices, and interpret the evidence according to their personal points of view.
The truth is not really out there.
Iphones can help in this regard. But more important is what they do not show.
You may have seen the video that the black man took of a woman in Central Park when he politely asked her to leash her dog in a wildlife sanctuary area that was posted with a sign telling everyone to keep their dogs on a leash. The white woman called the police and claimed a black man was threatening her and her dog. But the objective facts were on the black man's phone. There were also videos of white women calling the police about a black girl selling lemonade and other similar examples that were reported in the news.
"Ah if by some gift he gi' us to see ourselves as others see us". Thank you Steve Jobs for the iPhone.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
The point being, terms like Buddhism and Christianity are just labels, names that point to similar things using different terms.h_k_s wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 3:34 pmYou have made 3 statements but what is your point? Do you have a point?Present awareness wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 10:36 am
Christians believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit as it’s sometimes called. Eastern philosophers point to the same phenomenon of energy which permeates through all lifeforms and call it life force. They are both pointing to the same thing, but giving it different names.
In the times of Jesus, there were no newspapers, radio, TV, internet etc. so most people in those days were unaware of the existence of other countries, let alone what those people in other countries believed in. It’s not surprising that Jesus would not mention Buddhism.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
I think we've exhausted constructive conversation in this thread. I have not disagreed with your point that values are often based on subjective beliefs, but you offer no way to improve upon that situation. I offer that objective information can inform subjective opinions and correct them.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 7:35 amNo. Again. The appearance of black oppression on phones is a good example of selective bias. It is not known from this source if this represents a typical or statistically significant phenomenon. I think it may well be , but the source of my thinking on this is not "objective" in any sense.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 6:47 am
The BLM movement was driven by videos that individuals took on their cell phones and the examples of police misbehavior that were reported in the news. Objective facts force people to change views. It makes them aware of things that used to go unnoticed or were easily disregarded.No again. You are just shoe-horning your own views and pretending they are objective. Historical monuments exist for diverse reasons.
The facts about the Civil War monuments and what they actually represent has changed people's views about the statues of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The prior view, that the Civil War was all about "state's rights" has changed when confronted with the objective facts (the only state's right that was at issue was the right to own slaves).Your prejudice knows no bounds
Not to mention the problem of courts convicting a black man of a crime with a white witness and an all-white jury. But this too has been changed with objective evidence.
And your blindness of pretended objectivirty is impenetrable.
A black man is perfectly capable of bias too. The complexion of the jury should not matter if facts were objective - bit of course they are not.
Nothing concerning the previous acquaintance of the killer and Floyd could ever be presented objectively except the bare minimum; " they once worked at the same club". Any attempt to describe that meeting brings the evidence into the subjective realm of the speaker and the listener. The prosecution may make much of it - the defence will probably trivialise it. The jury will line it up against what they see as their "objective" prejudices, and interpret the evidence according to their personal points of view.
The truth is not really out there.Iphones can help in this regard. But more important is what they do not show.
You may have seen the video that the black man took of a woman in Central Park when he politely asked her to leash her dog in a wildlife sanctuary area that was posted with a sign telling everyone to keep their dogs on a leash. The white woman called the police and claimed a black man was threatening her and her dog. But the objective facts were on the black man's phone. There were also videos of white women calling the police about a black girl selling lemonade and other similar examples that were reported in the news.
"Ah if by some gift he gi' us to see ourselves as others see us". Thank you Steve Jobs for the iPhone.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
Thank you for completing your point. You should have learned in college (if you went) that in speech or writing you need to complete your points. They/we teach it in upper division composition and technical writing.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 11:18 amThe point being, terms like Buddhism and Christianity are just labels, names that point to similar things using different terms.
In the times of Jesus, there were no newspapers, radio, TV, internet etc. so most people in those days were unaware of the existence of other countries, let alone what those people in other countries believed in. It’s not surprising that Jesus would not mention Buddhism.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
You seem to have missed my point however in your misinterpretations of Aristotle and Jesus which I referred to.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 11:18 amThe point being, terms like Buddhism and Christianity are just labels, names that point to similar things using different terms.
In the times of Jesus, there were no newspapers, radio, TV, internet etc. so most people in those days were unaware of the existence of other countries, let alone what those people in other countries believed in. It’s not surprising that Jesus would not mention Buddhism.
I am referring to Aristotle and Jesus as PHILOSOPHERS, and not as mystics. Much of Jesus' teaching are philosophical, and much of it agrees with Aristotle. Thus these two philosophers both comment on the nature of the soul, as they called it.
They each postulate that a soul or similar force exists. But they cannot prove it, at least not to impartial 3rd party listeners.
Ergo the soul if it exists or not (skeptics which I am not would say it does not) cannot be otherwise perceived or proven.
We can only surmise for ourselves that there is some kind of life force like a soul within us that preceded birth and that supersedes death. Thanks to Jesus, which more people have heard of, approximately 2.2 billion currently, more than of Aristotle, the notion of a soul is a popular belief. Thanks to Muhammad another 2.1 billion also believe in it. That equals 4.3 billion which is the majority of the population of the world.
Don't confuse popular with philosophy though.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
I agree that a life force or soul exists within all living things. An ECG will show electrical energy happening within the brain, which proves that a form of energy is flowing within the body.h_k_s wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 8:15 pmYou seem to have missed my point however in your misinterpretations of Aristotle and Jesus which I referred to.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 11:18 am
The point being, terms like Buddhism and Christianity are just labels, names that point to similar things using different terms.
In the times of Jesus, there were no newspapers, radio, TV, internet etc. so most people in those days were unaware of the existence of other countries, let alone what those people in other countries believed in. It’s not surprising that Jesus would not mention Buddhism.
I am referring to Aristotle and Jesus as PHILOSOPHERS, and not as mystics. Much of Jesus' teaching are philosophical, and much of it agrees with Aristotle. Thus these two philosophers both comment on the nature of the soul, as they called it.
They each postulate that a soul or similar force exists. But they cannot prove it, at least not to impartial 3rd party listeners.
Ergo the soul if it exists or not (skeptics which I am not would say it does not) cannot be otherwise perceived or proven.
We can only surmise for ourselves that there is some kind of life force like a soul within us that preceded birth and that supersedes death. Thanks to Jesus, which more people have heard of, approximately 2.2 billion currently, more than of Aristotle, the notion of a soul is a popular belief. Thanks to Muhammad another 2.1 billion also believe in it. That equals 4.3 billion which is the majority of the population of the world.
Don't confuse popular with philosophy though.
On a microscopic scale, two cells combine at conception and the energy contained in each cell Is mixed to form a new organization. On a cosmic level, two galaxies will merge into one, combining their energy.
Prior to our birth, we lived in our parents body, our four grandparents bodies and our eight great grandparents bodies etc. so there has never been a time when we were not alive in some form, even if it was on a cellular level. However, where does the energy go at the moment of death? I suspect it is similar to where the flame goes when you blow out a candle. The flame is a byproduct of combustion and I feel that life force or soul is a byproduct of organic combustion, ie. conversion of oxygen and food into energy.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
I would leave it in we are body. Perhaps better: we are an organism.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 14th, 2020, 11:24 pm
We don’t have a soul, we ARE a soul. We don’t have a body, we ARE a body.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
My view on time is that it is a very useful concept, a way of measuring change using a clock to measure with and using “NOW” as the zero point from which to take the measurement. Past and future flow along this measurement line, but no matter where one is...on this measurement line...it will always be “NOW” the zero point from which we measure.HighSchool Socrates wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 3:21 pmIt all depends on what your view of time is. If you believe that time is universal and that it goes in a straight line until infinity,then you would probably say the interactions, feelings, perspectives, and all the other things that make up a human being have died. However if you believe that the present, past and future all play out at the same time, no one has ever truly died. If you believe in god, you would believe that only the sinful mortal body has died, while the soul passes to heaven. etc.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 11th, 2020, 12:00 pm The man I was, no longer “IS” and the man I might be, not yet here, so whom is it that dies at the moment of death?
The memories stored in the brain will disappear as the cells die and our self identity is based on those memories of passed events. The past events themselves have already ceased to exist, so it may not be said that the past dies at the moment of our death. Certainly all future potential dies at the moment of death, but how can that which is not yet born, be said to die?
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Who dies at the moment of death?
The main reason “NOW” may be considered the end of the tape measure, so to speak, is that we may not measure anything sooner then now. It seems like we are firmly locked in the zero point of now, with time flowing away from us, in one direction.Present awareness wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 11:38 pmMy view on time is that it is a very useful concept, a way of measuring change using a clock to measure with and using “NOW” as the zero point from which to take the measurement. Past and future flow along this measurement line, but no matter where one is...on this measurement line...it will always be “NOW” the zero point from which we measure.HighSchool Socrates wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 3:21 pm
It all depends on what your view of time is. If you believe that time is universal and that it goes in a straight line until infinity,then you would probably say the interactions, feelings, perspectives, and all the other things that make up a human being have died. However if you believe that the present, past and future all play out at the same time, no one has ever truly died. If you believe in god, you would believe that only the sinful mortal body has died, while the soul passes to heaven. etc.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023