2 of 7
2
Happiness - Who needs it?
Posted: 24 August 2007 09:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02

I agree it made no sense, but it was the name calling and acting as mod/admin I was referring to, but be that as it may if they stick around they might learn something.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 01:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  70
Joined  2007-08-05

We as individuals feel there is never a problem with us; how we think and preceived people, places, and things. We as individuals
never feel that others have a right to express themselves as they are, when it makes us feel insecure, afraid, hostile, or
misunderstood. Yet we can snap off sacarcastic responses, hurtful displays of lack of understanding, and overt dispostition of self-
righteousness in our thinking, and living, and yet be not willing to grant other the same right, and rights.

It is good thing this country give all people the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. 

Narwhol, you are living in the wrong time, and place.  Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s Russia, or Castro’s Cuba is where you should be.

 Signature 

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

You are never alone!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 05:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

No, I’m living now and asking that you don’t post religious beliefs to a philosophy forum because philosophy requires method and logic, and religious stuff requires faith and the two are entirely unrelated. And the relation betewen your first post and your second appeared to me to be very underhanded.  You started off with a question that might engage logical people and then on your second post you started evangelising and it looked to me like your plan was to come on to a secular website and start trying to convert people to a religion.  Secular people really don’t appreciate that, especially when they have come to a website that is for them.  This and the fact that you were cotinuing to place material that was completely unrelated to philosophy on a philosophy board in a largely philosophy based website meant I really felt someone ought to say something.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  70
Joined  2007-08-05

To myself, opinions, whether secular or religious come into play because they are a way of life to the one giving said opinions.  Philosophy is defined as a way of life.  If that way of life does not fall into the narrowness of one’s personal understanding of what is and is not approciate, this in and of itself makes ways for discussion as to who is to judge and say;

don’t post religious beliefs to a philosophy forum because philosophy requires method and logic, and religious stuff requires faith and the two are entirely unrelated.

Now you want to discuss it, or give out your Po Pot authoritative position?

 Signature 

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

You are never alone!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 08:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Philosophy is not defined as a way of life although one’s personal philosophy can inform a life plan.  Go and look up philosophy please.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  70
Joined  2007-08-05

When there is a discussion on a set of values, ideas, an opinions by an individual or group they are discussing ways of living and thinking through their lives.  One can’t have a way of life without a philosophy for living that life.

 Signature 

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

You are never alone!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

They can, they can have a completely irrational set of beliefs that have no philosophical underpinning (ie. no logically derived premised, hypothesised, empirically tested and analysed reasoning).  Many people do.  In deciding to that, they are not doing philosophy and theirs is not a philosophy on life.  And as stated before, philosophy may help to inform a way of life, but that is a by-product of philosophy.  Philosophy is a logical methodical process.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  70
Joined  2007-08-05

Whatever!

 Signature 

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

You are never alone!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02
narwhol - 25 August 2007 05:47 AM

No, I’m living now and asking that you don’t post religious beliefs to a philosophy forum because philosophy requires method and logic, and religious stuff requires faith and the two are entirely unrelated. And the relation betewen your first post and your second appeared to me to be very underhanded.  You started off with a question that might engage logical people and then on your second post you started evangelising and it looked to me like your plan was to come on to a secular website and start trying to convert people to a religion.  Secular people really don’t appreciate that, especially when they have come to a website that is for them.  This and the fact that you were cotinuing to place material that was completely unrelated to philosophy on a philosophy board in a largely philosophy based website meant I really felt someone ought to say something.

I hate to say this Narwhol, but I took a Philosophy class and we had to cover people such as Aquinas Augustine, and, Thomas D. Davis, and the Bible, Judaism, and Islam were included in the Philosophy class. Why I don’t know, I didn’t want to study is a philosophy but it was a requirement.  I rather study the Bible as literature and criticism.  Not as a philosophy, but be that as it may, it’s considered a philosophy.  We also studied the Upanishans in this class too.  Personally, if it weren’t for the fact that we studied Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Marx, Kant, Satre, and Darwin, I would have asked why it was not only a required class for a BA but also why it was in the Philosophy section.

Philosophy is not defined as a way of life although one’s personal philosophy can inform a life plan.

You are very right about this, Narwhol.

Jufa: 

When there is a discussion on a set of values, ideas, an opinions by an individual or group they are discussing ways of living and thinking through their lives.  One can’t have a way of life without a philosophy for living that life.

If you are thinking of philosophy in these terms, I’m guessing you are either from the Bible Belt, devote X-ian (which I’m not trying to condemn), or you went to a school that viewed philosophy in the same terms as the state university I am taking classes.

However, I must admit your posts are a bit unclear, vague, and probably need more clarification as to what you are trying to communicate.  Some that I have read, which I’ve read all of them, sound like you might be a recent immigrant to the States, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you are.  Even so, that might also give us better understanding of where you are coming from if we knew where you are originally from.  If you are from the U.S. originally, my mistake.  I also know some people struggle with typing too.

Since we are on the question of what is Philosophy, how is it Aquinas, Augustine, and the Bible fit into philosophy?  Believe it or not, I do have the answer in front of me and it is how it was done at the uni.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

You may have studied it in a philosophy class, but the bible per se is not philosophyand nor are religions, and the bible only contains odd snippets that qualify as philosophy. As to Augustine, he actually did some extremely good philosophy and it was logical (on the nature of language).  He also came out with a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo.  I can’t comment on Umpalumpas because I’ve never heard of them.  It is worth noting also that relgions will form part of a philosophy class since philosophy is an activity that can be done in any subject and religions and their geographic, cultural and idealogical roots are part of the humanities.

[ Edited: 25 August 2007 10:51 AM by narwhol ]
 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02

I don’t know what Umpalumpas are, but the Upanishads, actually are part of what X-ianity came from, which happened to blow my mind once it actually sunk into my brain and I hit the wall of shock at the realization like many religious scholars do- ie Dan Barker, Tom Harpur, and probably Price too, but I am digressing here.  I’m not trying to equate religion as a philosophy, but it is treated as such in philosophy classes and I think we should give Jufa the benefit of the doubt until s/he explains themselves more thoroughly or as as best they know how.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15405
Joined  2006-02-14
Mriana - 25 August 2007 10:55 AM

... the Upanishads, actually are part of what X-ianity came from ...

This would surprise me very much indeed. The Upanishads (for those who aren’t familiar with them) are a part of early Vedic Hinduism; their content is both religious and philosophical. But I don’t see that they have any historical link at all to early Christianity, and frankly am dubious of scholars who would promote such a theory. Early Christianity came from the Middle East, Rome and North Africa. Any link to India would be extremely tenuous at best.

That said, this is all OT in this thread ... perhaps we should get back to happiness? What say you all?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02

Not everyone sees it or agrees with the thought, but I have seen it quite plainly how it relates to Christianity.  Krishna, which is a prior form of Christ and also mean anointed, is believed to be Vishnu incarnate on earth.  Christ, which means anointed, is also believed God incarnate on earth.  Krishna even said he was the beginning, middle and end, just as Christ said he was the beginning and end.  OK, some may blow them off as just coensidental similarities, but many of the Gitas came before the idea of Christ.  So I don’t see the similarities anymore of a coensidence than Horus, Mithra, or Osiris.  I truly believe there was a lot of extrapolation done from all the various prior myths to form Christianity.  Christianity didn’t just pop out of no where.  It came from some where and I see it from the past myths.  While some disagree with me, it tells me that the stories about Jesus are nothing more than myth.  The fact is, people travelled back and forth sharing their stories and culturalizing them for their own people.

But you are right, it is all OT, but I think we should give Jufa the benefit of the doubt until s/he explains their position more thoroughly.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  70
Joined  2007-08-05

Not everyone sees it or agrees with the thought, but I have seen it quite plainly how it relates to Christianity.

My position

until s/he explains their position more thoroughly.

by using the circle is as followed

Religion, science and philosophy are the primers for mankind’s awareness, but that is all they are. Nonetheless, mankind thinks and believes theyare the basis for their living, achievements, sucess whether good or bad, and on and on and on. But as all situations, circumstances, condition and even the enviorn, they come and go fluently in all individuals lives unnoticed because the attitude of memory keeps one locked into that which was. Repetition of all we do is repetitive of all that is.

The zero [man] is absolute only because the definition of the circle [unknown metaphor] is recognized. It is that definition which makes the the void -that which is in the middle, and on the outside of the definition - appear to be the more than the equal of the definition. But it is the definition which makes the circle visible because there lies the form. Had there been no form, there would be no definition, and all would be void. So the reality of the circle is the definition because it is the only form there is. And thus that reality is comprehended when it is realized the voids which surround the outer and inner perimeters of the definition are not divided because they are linked by definition. All are one circle because it is the definition of the circle which gives the void within and without their definition of dimensions. Take away the definition of the circle and there is nothingness. But how can the circle be removed without removing the void, for it is the circle which gives the void form and makes all relative to the definition.

It is the attempt to remove the existence of the circle of definition which cause the chaotic quantum world of dualiam. For religion, science, and philosophy to say that which is the definitive perimeter of the circle, and that within and without the definitive circle has no meaning, when the reality all can only relate to the circle because of the form they bear as the void.

The circle is the metaphior which makes all things metaphors for the circle is a continuum of one. One is a continuum of itself. This is the truest…....and only state of awarness man can touch as a human.

 Signature 

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

You are never alone!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02

OK so what you are saying is that humans are doomed to fall for primitive superstitious myth to fill in the gaps of what they cannot comprehend or even attribute it to the source of happiness?  I can hardly believe that.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2