Roy M At least when a witness comes to the door you can expose yourself and offer them a beer. Can’t do that with game requests.
February 1 at 9:26pm
Mark S Roy I cannot believe you would post this…the Jehovahs Witnesses are the most beautiful people on this Earth…I love it when they come to my home, I wish they came more often…we live in such a filthy, immoral world !
February 1 at 9:30pm
Roy M Really Mark, to each his own. I on the other hand prefer not to be preached at about things that I don’t believe in with the attempt to get me to view the world along some specific viewpoint of a ancient books that have NOTHING to do with reality today. That’s why I have trouble communicating with my family. I think, therefore I am, and I laugh, because I’m ridiculous in the eye of most. And I don’t care. Sorry, I will send them all to you in the future, only one took the beer anyway.
February 1 at 9:35pm
Mark S I know that can be annoying…but remember they really are the salt of the earth…and shame on my own Catholic Church for the lies they preach about this religion and the way they assisted the Nazis in persecuting the poor Jehovahs during WWII…now I said it hah !
February 1 at 9:39pm
Larry Marshall Strange you would cite Descartes: “Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been unreliable. So Descartes determines that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is what he does, and his power must come from his essence. Descartes defines “thought” (cogitatio) as “what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it”. Thinking is thus every activity of a person of which the person is immediately conscious. In this manner, Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. In the third and fifth Meditation, he offers an ontological proof of a benevolent God (through both the ontological argument and trademark argument). Because God is benevolent, he can have some faith in the account of reality his senses provide him, for God has provided him with a working mind and sensory system and does not desire to deceive him.”
February 2 at 1:31pm
Mark S I enjoy all of your posts Roy…Keep posting, especially about our unstable alcoholic governor…
Yesterday at 7:38am
Roy M okay, been busy, but Larry, I did not cite Descartes. I did a bit of paraphrase. The great Renee uses the phrase he coined to show his doubt in his own existence and that he can think is the ultimate proof that the god of his time, is a deceiving god and that he can rationalize; that means, well, guess what, that his existence is in fact proof not in god, but man, specifically himself. je pense donc je suis. Renee’s belief that his own realization that god did not exist was his alone, and he did not in any way believe he needed to knock on the doors of neighbors to spread his belief that thinking was the true faith. And I added that of all things in this universe, I KNOW I am my own person, and no one’s belief system can be mine if I think for myself. And the cool thing is it means laughing with those laughing at me. Unlike them, I have no doubts. So sure, I think, therefore……… I laugh.
19 hours ago
Larry Marshall In the 3 philosophy classes I took (2 at ASU one at Glendale Community) they generally taught on Descartes 1st, 2nd and 4th meditations- generally picking some sentences out of the third and ignoring the 5th completely. Since this was during the height of the “God is Dead” movement it wasn’t helpful to have Rene Descartes known as the father of modern philosophy and algebraic geometry to admit that his mind is nevertheless controlled by God but Meditation V clearly shows that:
MEDITATION V OF THE ESSENCE OF MATERIAL THINGS; AND, AGAIN, OF GOD; THAT HE EXISTS.
7. But now if because I can draw from my thought the idea of an object, it follows that all I clearly and distinctly apprehend to pertain to this object, does in truth belong to it, may I not from this derive an argument for the existence of God? It is certain that I no less find the idea of a God in my consciousness, that is the idea of a being supremely perfect, than that of any figure or number whatever: and I know with not less clearness and distinctness that an [actual and] eternal existence pertains to his nature than that all which is demonstrable of any figure or number really belongs to the nature of that figure or number; and, therefore, although all the conclusions of the preceding Meditations were false, the existence of God would pass with me for a truth at least as certain as I ever judged any truth of mathematics to be.
8 hours ago
Roy M Hmmmm, Soren tells us that each generation has its own task and need not trouble themselves to attempt to be everything for everyone in previous generations. Hmmm, again, we, as thinking humans, need to think for ourselves. And to quote a translation, “No generation learns the essential human from another.” but conversely, each generation learns of god, from their predecessors. Certainly Renee grew with his writings, and proposed a number of concepts in later works, however je pense donc je suis being his greatest work, and it in and of itself was an expression of his own doubts about the existence of the god of his time.
Larry Marshall Descartes’ original phrase, je pense, donc je suis, appeared in his Discourse on the Method (1637), which was written in French rather than Latin to reach a wider audience in his country than scholars. He used the Latin cogito ergo sum in the later Principles of Philosophy (1644). It was contained in the 1st Meditation If one chooses to ignore the other 4 Meditations then one gets only a partial perspective on the beginnings of existentialism. One should read all of his writings because when he gets to this phrase in the 5th Meditation “although all the conclusions of the preceding Meditations were false, the existence of God would pass with me for a truth at least as certain as I ever judged any truth of mathematics to be.” Sounds to me like he is saying the existence of God is as certain as 1 + 1 = 2.
Again with Soren, his writings cover a wide and far flung examination of the world around him. He assigned pseudonyms to explore particular viewpoints in-depth, which required several books in some instances, while Kierkegaard, openly or under another pseudonym, critiqued that position. Therefore, it does make it difficult to determine his actual position on philosophical questions.
The following passage, from 1 August 1835, is perhaps his most oft-quoted aphorism and a key quote for existentialist studies:
What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die.” [(Søren Kierkegaard’s Journals & Papers IA Gilleleie, 1 August 1835]
Although I prefer this one: “People understand me so little that they do not even understand when I complain of being misunderstood.”
—Søren Kierkegaard, Journals Feb. 1836
You are right when Soren says each generation needs to discover on their own, but he lays out a foundational belief to be used to discover the essence of a human as opposed to their existence.
Kierkegaard believed “each generation has its own task and need not trouble itself unduly by being everything to previous and succeeding generations”. In an earlier book he had said, “to a certain degree every generation and every individual begins his life from the beginning”, and in another, “no generation has learned to love from another, no generation is able to begin at any other point than the beginning”, “no generation learns the essentially human from a previous one.” He was against the Hegelian idea of mediation because it introduces a “third term” that comes between the single individual and the object of desire. Kierkegaard asked if logic ends in actuality, can a person logically prove God’s existence? Logic says no. Then he turns from logic to ethics and finds that Hegelian philosophy is negative rather than positive. This “third term” isn’t mediation, it’s love that proves God’s existence. He addressed this again in 1847:
You know that God is, but it seems as if he has withdrawn into himself. You know that Christ existed eighteen-hundred years ago, but that was a long time ago. Meet all the terrors of the future with this comfort: love abides; meet all the anxiety and listlessness of the present with this comfort; love abides. This is an upbuilding thought: love abides. This little work is continually dealing only with the works of love, therefore not with God’s love, but with human love. There is the one who loves then the object of love and love itself as the third. …. God’s being merciful points away from himself. “If you want to love me, then love the people you see; what you do for them, you do for me. If you want to show that your life is intended to serve God, then let it serve people, yet continually with the thought of God.” Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, Hong, pp. 301, 160-161.
And also writes:
“God creates out of nothing, but here, if I dare say so, he does more-he dresses an instinct in all the beauty of erotic love so that the lovers see only the beauty and are unaware of the instinct.” …. “The how of the truth is precisely the truth. …. Every human being is spirit and truth is the self-activity of appropriation.” …. “There is no work, not one single one, not even the best, about which we unconditionally dare to say: The one who does this unconditionally demonstrates love by it. It depends on how the work is done.” Soren Kierkegaard, Stages on Life’s Way, p. 122-123, Concluding Postscript p. 322-323, 242, Works of Love, Hong p. 13
16 hours ago
Roy M Ok, thanks for affirming my point
2 hours ago
And of course that dialog just affirmed my points. My point is that those who don’t have an underlying moral value for their beliefs pick and choose what it is they want to believe and they do so in manner that makes it most convenient to them.
My key point shows up in my statement “In the 3 philosophy classes I took … they generally taught on Descartes 1st, 2nd and 4th meditations- generally picking some sentences out of the third and ignoring the 5th completely.” My philosophy instructors had to cherry-pick some sentences from the 3rd meditation to explain some of the points in the 4th meditation. If you follow Descartes through his Meditations he starts with “I think, therefore I am.” Then to paraphrase him it would be: “I think, therefore I am, what am I, why am I and who am I.” His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt” then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero. From here, Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that “I exist” is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver.
Descartes’ influence in mathematics is equally apparent; the Cartesian coordinate system — allowing reference to a point in space as a set of numbers, and allowing algebraic equations to be expressed as geometric shapes in a two-dimensional coordinate system (and conversely, shapes to be described as equations) — was named after him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry, the bridge between algebra and geometry, crucial to the discovery of infinitesimal calculus and analysis.
So when he writes “therefore, although all the conclusions of the preceding Meditations were false, the existence of God would pass with me for a truth at least as certain as I ever judged any truth of mathematics to be” he means he is as certain that God exists as he is sure that 1 + 1 = 2.
Then Roy writes: “Soren tells us that each generation has its own task and need not trouble themselves to attempt to be everything for everyone in previous generations” and as expected completely ignores my response. What Soren Kierkegaard is saying is that every generation has, going back to Socrates and Plato, asked the same questions as to “Who am I” (A great song by the way from Country Joe and the Fish – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxvhnJ5zzY ). So he states that the new generations should believe the thoughts and theories already advanced by the previous generations but because some of them may have a tendency to lead you astray then you need to know how to judge them to be right or wrong.
He felt that the prevalent Hegelian philosophy was negative rather than positive believing that “You know that God is, but it seems as if he has withdrawn into himself.” So he states then that rather than waste your time by rethinking the thoughts of the past, think of the future and do so by applying belief to your searching for truth: “If you want to love me, then love the people you see; what you do for them, you do for me. If you want to show that your life is intended to serve God, then let it serve people, yet continually with the thought of God.”
It so closely follows Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” New International Version
But again, those who develop their morality from the kindness and goodness of everyone surrounding them and the combined karma of us all, have a tendency to ignore the “complete” works of their favorite philosophers. I just wish that I wasn’t such a dumb, enthralled kid in college and had the courage to question the instructors as to why they were skipping such large sections of the philosophy textbooks and why it seemed like those passages contradicted what his outline said. I would have learned the truth about the “Truth” so much sooner.
My brother and so many others are happy with their fabricated belief systems. Great, more power to them. I prefer mine to be based upon undisputable facts and the inerrancy of the Bible as the Word of the one and only God. To each his own. “I know, there for I can laugh, love and live life to the fullest”