‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Why isn’t philosophy taught in schools?

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2008 05:49
 
frankr - 08 March 2008 12:44 PM

. . . Why do I see gulags and prison camps and secular inquisitions when I hear the phrase that fundamentalist muslims and neo nazis and creationists are to be given a chance. Using logic we see that the suicide bomber and the Jew hater and the young earth creationist are all of the the same ilk. . . .

How ironic, Frank, to see you once again claiming moral superiority.

I remember your position in a past discussion that put things to rest for me. Your stated position was that atrocious behaviors, including severe torture, were properly carried out by former members of your Club. I don’t think you’re alone in this assessment of things, and for that reason, I consider you to be currently peace-loving, but potentially—perhaps by way of your many offspring and students—a very real danger to society. Just because your Club is currently subdued doesn’t mean that it will always remain reformed.

Have you changed your position? If so, please explain in as much detail as you can, how your new mental framework has managed to come about.

 
 
frankr
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2323
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
09 March 2008 11:04
 
homunculus - 09 March 2008 09:49 AM
frankr - 08 March 2008 12:44 PM

. . . Why do I see gulags and prison camps and secular inquisitions when I hear the phrase that fundamentalist muslims and neo nazis and creationists are to be given a chance. Using logic we see that the suicide bomber and the Jew hater and the young earth creationist are all of the the same ilk. . . .

How ironic, Frank, to see you once again claiming moral superiority.

I remember your position in a past discussion that put things to rest for me. Your stated position was that atrocious behaviors, including severe torture, were properly carried out by former members of your Club. I don’t think you’re alone in this assessment of things, and for that reason, I consider you to be currently peace-loving, but potentially—perhaps by way of your many offspring and students—a very real danger to society. Just because your Club is currently subdued doesn’t mean that it will always remain reformed.

Have you changed your position? If so, please explain in as much detail as you can, how your new mental framework has managed to come about.

Let me be clear. Of course I think the christian (specificaly Catholic) worldviews superior to the all other worldviews. If I did not then I would not hold it as true. You accusse catholics of torture (of which there are plenty of examples) and somehow blame the message for the actions of men. When in fact the message accounts for the fallen nature of men. You then make the mistake of ignoring the murdering atheists of history (aka atheists in power) and point to the benevolent atheists of history. I have no problem with the truth that there are and have been atheists who are morally superior to believers. My point is that the moral atheist is moral in spite of his doctrine and the immoral christian is immoral in spite of his. So if you are going to dwell on the point that some atheists are better people then some christians then you have no argument from me; however, if you argue that that the materialistic nihlism of modern atheism is a superior world view or ethic than that of Christianity, then we are going to continue to disagree. Christians can fail, have failed , and will continue to fail in their following of Christ. They aim high. Atheists are successful because the mark is self imposed and easily altered. So yes Catholics have done horrible things over the years. We say it is horrible because we believe in a universal standard. I do not think the atheist has a universal standard and therefore falsely claims that they are morally superior.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20538
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 March 2008 17:06
 

[quote author=“burt”]

I’m not saying that a Christian can’t be a scientist, or vice versa, or that Christianity (Islam, Judism, etc.) can’t co-exist today with science—but they do have to readjust to the point of accepting scientific results that contradict their doctrines

The issue is interpretation of the foundational texts, and science can assist in carving away at interpretations that are based on incorrect understandings of the scope of the passage under consideration. The 6000 year-old age of the earth is an example, which is based upon an interpretation that is not the best one available for the primary text.

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
09 March 2008 20:43
 
frankr - 09 March 2008 03:04 PM

Let me be clear. Of course I think the christian (specificaly Catholic) worldviews superior to the all other worldviews. If I did not then I would not hold it as true. You accusse catholics of torture (of which there are plenty of examples) and somehow blame the message for the actions of men. When in fact the message accounts for the fallen nature of men. You then make the mistake of ignoring the murdering atheists of history (aka atheists in power) and point to the benevolent atheists of history. I have no problem with the truth that there are and have been atheists who are morally superior to believers. My point is that the moral atheist is moral in spite of his doctrine and the immoral christian is immoral in spite of his. So if you are going to dwell on the point that some atheists are better people then some christians then you have no argument from me; however, if you argue that that the materialistic nihlism of modern atheism is a superior world view or ethic than that of Christianity, then we are going to continue to disagree. Christians can fail, have failed , and will continue to fail in their following of Christ. They aim high. Atheists are successful because the mark is self imposed and easily altered. So yes Catholics have done horrible things over the years. We say it is horrible because we believe in a universal standard. I do not think the atheist has a universal standard and therefore falsely claims that they are morally superior.

Frank, you’ve provided me with some really challenging reading here. Challenging in the sense of not quite up-and-running with the alert.

“You accusse catholics of torture (of which there are plenty of examples) and somehow blame the message for the actions of men.”

What message? As you know, I’m a fairly generous person, Frank, and as a result I’m happy to offer you one hour of my time attempting to teach you how to write. I could guess at what message you’re referring to, but I’d rather simply go to an obviously crucial point: I’m not “ignoring the murdering atheists of history,” or pointing to “the benevolent atheists of history.” Having been a practicing religionist for most of my life, and not being a self-hating person now or ever, I promise not “to dwell on the point that some atheists are better people then some christians.” I am both. My brain is that of a Christian, plus a couple of (self-induced?) minor tweaks that have resulted in my atheistic inclinations.

I’m surprised you haven’t already figured it out, but I’m not a big fan of the good-evil paradigm, Frank. I generally tend to eschew comments about “better people” or any such idiotic ideation. I don’t see atheists or theists as better or worse people in any sort of imagined comparison. Since you bring up the subject, I suspect that you do.

No, Frank. I was referring, as succinctly as I could, to the FACT that you consider severe and murderous torture to be proper in circumstances that to me seem entirely superstitious and otherworldly. Torture and needless killing of innocents is old-school, Frank. Well-considered alternatives have been put into place in the secular world. Reconsider yours.

 
 
frankr
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2323
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
09 March 2008 21:56
 

The Message:

“Love your enemy”
“Turn the other cheek”
“The greatest commandment is to love God ..... and to to love your neighbor as yourself”
” the first among you is the one that serves”
” forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

I’d write the beatitudes next but I think you get my point. Now where do these well considered alternatives put in place by the secular world come from? Whther or not you’re a fan of the good evil paradigm is beside the point. You obviously buy into it because yu are constantly pointing out the shortcoming of christians in history. If you didn’t buy into it then you wouldn’t have anything more to say then torture is not my cup of tea. I think you think torture is evil and that the non torturer is better morally then the torturer.

 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
10 March 2008 08:00
 
frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

The Message:

Running the tape loop once more for old time’s sake? You’re exceeding your authority here, Frank. Here’s why:

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

“Love your enemy”

“Turn the other cheek”

No thank you. First, it is not possible to turn this into consistent (or persistent?) action. You will be dead by midmorning if you pursue this senseless idealism. Additionally, these are redundant, so you don’t need to write both. Say something once, why say it again? I can’t seem to face up to the facts. I’m tense and nervous and I can’t relax.

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

“The greatest commandment is to love God .....

You want the secular world to come up with an alternative to this? Here goes: ”      “.

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

and to to love your neighbor as yourself”

Can’t be done. You have to invoke superhuman powers to do it, and we’re only human. The better recommendation is not to treat others in a way that you would not like to be treated. Please do not mistake conversational intolerance for unreasoning fury. The latter used to come out, for example, as witch-burning. Lately we’ve seen it in Ulster. Or, if that hits too close to home, Bosnia or Rwanda. All arguing which version of Jesus is best. Or you can put Al Qaeda on the mound to pitch against the Evangelicals. It won’t be a no-hitter.

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

” the first among you is the one that serves”

Sure, if you’re trying to get dumb fucks to accept low-wage shit jobs.  This isn’t religion, it’s corporate capitalism.

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

” forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Who are we asking to forgive us? I forget. How does the saying go? Forgive or forget? To forgive is not to forget.

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

Now where do these well considered alternatives put in place by the secular world come from?

So far, the “secular world” does not appear to have been missing out on anything that has any value. This is capitalism, again. Really, Frank, I think you should be campaigning for the S&P;500 to donate their assets to the poor. But then you will be sending a mixed “Message”.

Can’t you just see banks everywhere just forgiving their bad debts? No, they write them off against profits. You go, Frank. Take another sip of Powers while you’re at it. By the look of it, you’ve just about finished the bottle already.

frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

I think you think torture is evil and that the non torturer is better morally then the torturer.

Not quite. It’s true that torturing people to get what you want represents an underachievement. However, being labeled “morally better”, plus 0.25 USD, will buy you a brightly-colored gumball, Frank, Chew it carefully so as not to get it in your hair. In fact, Frank, I think you better sock away a goodly supply of gumballs for future use. The prices are only going to go up. Buy low, sell high.

[ Edited: 10 March 2008 10:51 by Traces Elk]
 
 
frankr
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2323
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
10 March 2008 13:43
 

Salt creek
You need some peanutbutter. Gets the gum out of your own hair. On and on with clever and not so clever puns. What is your point. Christianity is too difficult. I know staying on point is not your strength, but you usually have one. What is the secular alternative and where does it come from? Don’t be discouraged by the difficulty of the task. The joy comes in trying not in succeeding.

Don’t forget the Powers. It does the body good.  I had a sip of Highland Park single malt scotch recently. I doubt there exists a nicer scotch at a price I could afford. magical I tell you. Still too expensive to be a regular. Powers has earned that distinction

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
10 March 2008 13:59
 
frankr - 10 March 2008 01:56 AM

. . .
. . . Whether or not you’re a fan of the good evil paradigm is beside the point. You obviously buy into it. . . .

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I’ll respond briefly to the above, Frank. Anyone who might want to can (obviously) get things back on track by quoting the OP or anything else.

Looking for and dwelling on evil is almost never necessary and never actually has been. Almost all battles, disagreements, feuds and wars feature one side as evil and the other side as good. Which side is which depends entirely on which perspective you’re measuring. We can view the entire world through a good-evil lens with, if we’re able to, an occasional gray filter. Where does that typically take us? To hatred, racism and sexism, with a dollop of general intolerance. No understanding of human nature is attempted.

Most metropolitan criminal courts, at least in Western societies, currently refuse to see things your way, Frank. Their juries and judges, by way of arguments made by prosecutors and defense attorneys, amount to amoral behavioral observation with appropriate societal response. They’re very good at leaving good/evil/morality terms out of their vocabulary and hence out of their arguments. Would you argue that they need to return to ways of the distant past?

Frank, if you want to discuss this topic seriously, I’d request that you respond by opening a new thread somewhere. If your response stays here, I probably won’t take things any further and will not do any more that might tend to derail the subject of this thread.

 
 
uli
 
Avatar
 
 
uli
Total Posts:  45
Joined  26-02-2008
 
 
 
11 March 2008 13:01
 

I completely agree with Frank that ‘evil’ is caused by human beings.  Quite often this evil is justified by using texts about invisible powers written by other human beings.

 
frankr
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2323
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
11 March 2008 14:02
 

And quite often evil is done by people who want to save “humanity” from the influence of texts written about invisible powers.

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
11 March 2008 16:21
 

Human life, once the essentials have been attended to, is overwhelmingly pleasant for most of us. I suspect that no matter what condition the world around us became, we’d still value our lives as being precious. Frank, if you’re assuming that your Good v. Evil Parochial-Horror-Show view of things—and I suspect you do—is necessary for humanity to thrive, all I can say is that conditions could be much better. Do you ever stop to think about how much of the world lacks what we’ve come to expect as necessities? Things such as plumbing, motorized transportation, availability of assorted foods at an instant, etc. Humanity is not currently thriving, in my opinion. For the time being, at least, it is surviving. How many world problems get solved with religion? How many get solved when ancient and superstitious ways of thinking are put aside?

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
11 March 2008 19:18
 
homunculus - 11 March 2008 08:21 PM

Things such as plumbing, motorized transportation, availability of assorted foods at an instant, etc.

... are not produced in abundance by philosophers. This may be the reason that philosophy is not taught in reputable schools.

homunculus - 11 March 2008 08:21 PM

Humanity is not currently thriving

... due, not in any small part, to the tireless efforts of philosophers.

frankr - 11 March 2008 06:02 PM

And quite often evil is done by…

... yep, you guessed it: Philosophers.

Should one be faced with the choice between an effective sewage system and an ironclad, but strangely soothing, philosophical system, there need be little debate.

[ Edited: 11 March 2008 19:29 by Traces Elk]
 
 
frankr
 
Avatar
 
 
frankr
Total Posts:  2323
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
12 March 2008 08:15
 

Salt Creek
Unfortunately you hold dogmatically the strangely soothing philosophical system that only science matters. You need philosophy to debunk philosophy. If you are looking to locate fellow travellers try the frat house late at night or on a slow Friday afternoon. Make sure you bring the weed. They probably meet after plumbing class.

 
waltercat
 
Avatar
 
 
waltercat
Total Posts:  1547
Joined  02-03-2006
 
 
 
13 March 2008 13:02
 
frankr - 12 March 2008 12:15 PM

Salt Creek
Unfortunately you hold dogmatically the strangely soothing philosophical system that only science matters. You need philosophy to debunk philosophy. If you are looking to locate fellow travellers try the frat house late at night or on a slow Friday afternoon. Make sure you bring the weed. They probably meet after plumbing class.

Maybe.  But I actually think that SC thinks more along the following lines:

First: NOTHING MATTERS

Second:  Only that which can be stated in the language of science can be true.

Third:  The only things that we know to be true are the things that science has demonstrated to be true.

I’ll call this view “Nihilistic Scientism”

What do you think SC?  Have I got you pegged?

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
13 March 2008 13:28
 
waltercat - 13 March 2008 05:02 PM

First: NOTHING MATTERS

Second:  Only that which can be stated in the language of science can be true.

Walter, if I believe nothing matters, then I don’t care whether any statement can be regarded as true. Of course, what you mean by saying that “something matters” might be important. But you might not think that it matters what you mean when you say anything in particular.

What I think you understand is that it does not matter to me what you think is “true”. My interest is in the set of measurements you and I can agree upon as supporting a particular hypothesis in some field of empirical study.

[ Edited: 13 March 2008 13:36 by Traces Elk]
 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >