Those who do use it in their writings do use it correctly
Not being a physicist yourself, John, or ever having studied the rigorous details of QM, how would you know? You also seem to be an expert on transpersonal psychology, on the writings of the ancient Greeks, on the concept of “divinity”, and even on the niceties of polishing tiled floors and details of automobile repair. Tell me, are there any limits to your expertise?
John Brand - 01 August 2008 05:53 PM
I am not convinced that your bringing in your sexual pleasure is appropriate.
Not only that, but you are also a world-renowned expert on the appropriateness of aspects of human conduct. Who knew?
Actually, John, you have a tendency toward priggishness that is exceeded only by your foolish pretense at expertise in subjects you know nothing about. It is unclear whether or not you know anything at all, since you seem mostly to rely on being able to refer to reference books. I’m so glad you have a large library at your disposal, but you are still a phony intellectual.
Although a happy life is different for all of us I think we can at least find some guidelines that will work for all of us when we seek to increase our happy-happy joy-joyness.
1. Dress well.
Shallowness is vastly underrated.
For the gentlemen: you can’t go wrong with fine, black Italian suits.
For you hussies: Think French women. Dresses, skirts and nothing too flashy and show some skin for rice cakes.
2. Dance like Matt.
3. Act according to your nature.
You can see a person’s character fairly early in life.
If you are ‘high-energy’ and like to fight, pick up Thai boxing.
If you are a dull twit, accept it and become a Scrabble master.
4. Fire your bodyguards.
5. Under no circumstance should you listen to country music.
6. When in public, smile. If you are not in the mood for it, fake it.
7. Kill your TV.
8. Kill a Baldwin.
9. Rotate your vices and revel in them.
10. Travel widely. Visit exotic countries, seek out the local clergymen and ask them to visit you when they come to the US and give them your card which has the address of Zed and the Gimp on it.
(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Deteriorata, Deteriorata)
Go placidly amidst the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof. Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep. Rotate your tires. Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself; and heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys. Know what to kiss - and when. Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three lefts do. Wherever possible, put people on hold. Be comforted, that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in computer maintenance.
(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.)
Remember the Pueblo. Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate. Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI. Exercise caution in your daily affairs, especially with those persons closest to you… That lemon on your left, for instance. Be assured that a walk through the seas of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet. Fall not in love, therefore, it will stick to your face. Gracefully surrender the things of youth: the birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan - and let not the sands of time get in your lunch. Hire people with hooks. For a good time, call 606-4311, ask for Ken. Take heart in the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese. And reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot, it could only be worse in Milwaukee.
(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.)
Therefore, make peace with your god, whatever you perceive him to be: hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin. With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal, the world continues to deteriorate. GIVE UP!
(You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.)
Thanks for the Nihilism 101 lesson - though I think it was unnecessary. You responded to a question about non-overlapping ven-diagrams with a jab at SC’s “nihilism” - an unsubtle deflection, IMHO. I was questioning whether that was the precise intent of your post, that’s all.
Sorry for the overkill ... I was trying to use the wike definition as a common point of correspondence. I had been under the impression that SC identifies himself as a nihilist from a number of his postings. It certainly wasn’t my intent to deflect the import of your question. My point is that there doesn’t appear to a point at which SC’s stance overlaps with the other stances I have introduced into the discussion. Many of the Venn’s intersect at the point that Dennett is calling intentionality but SC’s stance is not among them.
No. I don’t think that nihilism is synonymous with atheism.
Simply put, and for all further discussions, atheism is simply ‘lack of belief in (a) god(s)”.
If you want to play semantics games with notions of hard atheism versus soft atheism, and/or throw in the complications of anti-theism, we can do that, but it all boils down to the same thing.
So essentially, based on this simple description, there is no reason to expect a position about morality (let alone objective morality).
Nor is there any reason to expect atheism to present a discourse on the relative merits of different actions.
Further, atheism makes no reference to the meaning of life.
It is possible to be atheist and not be nihilist.
It is possible to be atheist and not be a critical thinker.
It is possible to be atheist and have strong positions on the meaning of one’s own life.
It is possible to be atheist and not be scientifically inclined.
Therefore I think this is pretty self explanatory, and also pretty basic stuff. Thus my question.
Thanks for the clarification of your own perspective. Yes, I do think that I am using the term nihilism correctly but I am limiting it in this instance by referring to Salt Creek’s nihilism which I think is more solipsistic than what you are outlining as a potentiality for nihilism. I agree
It is possible to be atheist and not be nihilist.
It is possible to be atheist and not be a critical thinker.
It is possible to be atheist and have strong positions on the meaning of one’s own life.
It is possible to be atheist and not be scientifically inclined.
I would not include Salt Creek’s nihilism among any of the above and this is what makes it difficult to engage him in debate. He appears to abandon critical thinking in my discussions with him and he does not appear to have any kind of position on the meaning of life. This was the direction of my comment rather than using it as a deflection.
One creates teleology in ones own existence. There is no inherent significance that exists outside of the mind. Some people create expansive goals and meaning that they may or may not attempt to fulfill. Others create very simple aims. Most are probably not consciously aware that they have created any intendment for their existence. Any purpose that one concocts for their being is independent of and oblivious to the physical universe outside of their thoughts. That is not to say that the physical environment cannot be affected in some way by the actions that one may commit as a result of ones perceived determination.
I would not include Salt Creek’s nihilism among any of the above and this is what makes it difficult to engage him in debate. He appears to abandon critical thinking in my discussions with him and he does not appear to have any kind of position on the meaning of life.
Don’t mistake my unwillingness to share my innermost hopes and aspirations with someone such as yourself for a lack of having identified any such hopes and aspirations. You have to earn it, John. I don’t owe you any more than you’ve offered me, and probably much, much less, insofar as you seem unprepared to deliver on what you have considered yourself to offer. You still seem to think it’s all about you, and nitpick about whether somebody is willing to engage with you.
Our Venn diagrams don’t appear to have any overlap at this point but Shane and I do have such overlap. Perhaps you might want to turn the volume down on your computer screen .
So if yours (and Shane’s) crop-circles of “constructed definitions of happiness” do not overlap with SC’s (or a variety of other people’s personal crop-circles) and you acknowledge this exclusion at the outset, what possible benefit is there to a discussion of arbitrary definitions for happiness, unless its just a private philisophical love-in for divin-o-centric crop maintenance?
I thought I should clarify my use of in my statement above to SC. By “turn the volume down” I was referring to an interjection he had made in First Post, Introduction ... (Post #414:
Salt Creek - 26 June 2008 10:45 PM
John Brand - 26 June 2008 07:12 PM
Hating God in our terms would be more like ignoring God or ignoring the sacred. Someone has said, “human beings are deep but most of us don’t act like it.” Depth would be a better word for the older term ‘divine’: Most of us are shallow. We don’t care about each other because we have a great deal on our plate.
I don’t have a problem with it. Should I have a problem with it? Evil? What’s not to like? It’s invisible, inaudible, and usually tasteless, rather like a Richard Simmons exercise video with the sound turned off and nothing but blown pixels on your LCD.
It is very obvious that he becomes enraged in his discussion with me and this is probably due to the fact that he is rabid anti-theist. I would make a strong distinction between this stance and a strong anti-theistic stance. In other words, SC tends to make the argument about me (ad hominem) rather than engaging in serious discussion (as per the present conversation). My point with the , is to say “why can’t you just consider me invisible, inaudible?” rather than getting so upset.
One creates teleology in ones own existence. There is no inherent significance that exists outside of the mind. Some people create expansive goals and meaning that they may or may not attempt to fulfill. Others create very simple aims. Most are probably not consciously aware that they have created any intendment for their existence. Any purpose that one concocts for their being is independent of and oblivious to the physical universe outside of their thoughts. That is not to say that the physical environment cannot be affected in some way by the actions that one may commit as a result of ones perceived determination.
In other words, SC tends to make the argument about me (ad hominem) rather than engaging in serious discussion (as per the present conversation). My point with the , is to say “why can’t you just consider me invisible, inaudible?” rather than getting so upset.
What? You want carte blanche to blather on ad nauseam about your invisible divinities? You should get some information about how repulsive such arrant nonsense is to a person whose brains have not been knocked out by sophistry.
Engaging with you, John, is rather like engaging with a wad of 2000-year-old chewing gum. That you think your shit doesn’t stink is a testament to how much damage your theophily has done you. Sounding brass, and all that rot.
Not possible. You’ve composed no falsifiable propositions. You’ve read about the philosophy of science, but know nothing of science itself. In fact, it appears that your philosophy of science is heavily biased to view the scientific enterprise only as a cultural construct.
Both Shane and myself are able to compare paradigm within the domain of
(1) Classic Philosophy (of which Christian Theology is a subset)
(2) The texts upon which both secular and christian theology are based.
Thus, your statement is incorrect as it has been pulled from its context. If you are interested in entering the debate with me, we might be able to agree on the following falsifiable thesis:
“Happiness is generated within the human mind by processes which are as yet not understood completely by the general scientific community. However, it has historically been sourced within constructs such as divinity, logos, dharma and tao to name but a few.”
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
...it is my understanding…
This is a euphemism; try to distinguish the “feeling of understanding” (empathy) from scientific understanding. You understand the point that Kuhn was trying to make, but your biases have caused you to do a great deal more with it than is justified. It doesn’t matter, because Kuhn did not produce any “understanding” of the scientific enterprise that was very useful to anyone but postmodernists.
I’ve read Kuhn’s monograph The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.. A foundation for criticizing it is located at the link given. I think an honest discussion of the details of your philosophy of science is necessary before discussing what you believe are the further implications of it. Don’t lose sight of the fact that you have the responsibility of making your case here. I’m not arguing for any particular slant on human behavior, and make no claims about any “purpose” to human existence.
I am game for this challenge ... I’ll take a look at the link.
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
You seem most concerned that viewing human beings as complex agglomerations of fundamental particles leaves no room for any predetermined meaning to it all. That is your problem to solve, not mine.
Your assumption is incorrect. I would argue against a possible determinism in your statement of the potentiality of the human being as you define him/her.
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
a group of paradigms who are competing for dominance within a given community of scientists
You need to delve into this concept a little deeper. There’s more to the philosophy of science than that, but it is evidently what you have chosen to focus on. Are you heading in the direction of establishing normative prescriptions from the loci of sample means? You had best be assured that if you do, you will be leaving far behind you the delights of argumentum ad verulam.
I am not sure I understand your objection here, SC. The study of the human mind’s intentionality is riddled with conflict: “Since the Phenomenological tradition, mainly on the Continent, has continued to exploit the concept of intention. ality along rather different lines, the problem of intentionality is one of the best points of convergent concern in these two largely separate—and often antagonistic—research traditions.” (Dennett Intentionality
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
(Popper: “Progress depends entirely upon disagreement”
It might be profitable to discuss falisfiability. I can refer you to a thread over at the Dawkins forum on just that subject to get us started.
Thanks ... I’ll look for it next week.
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
(2) The paradigm should contain a method of inquiry
Are you sure that you cannot begin more vaguely than this? The words “method” and “inquiry” are redundant in the above statement. For all I know, a “method” might simply involve sitting on your thumbs and contemplating. You know damn well what the deficiencies of research methodology in social psychology are at present. If any of it is conducted in contact with any of the findings of the field of human biology, you haven’t mentioned it yet.
Any experiment must begin with a hypothesis and some sort of procedure for proving whether or not the hypothesis can be substantiated. But I’ll rework this for you next week.
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
the thinking patterns of the human being which Dennett says has some sort of intentionality or direction.
There are plenty of interesting aspects to human behavior that do not involve an a priori bias toward “purpose”, which is a sop to your theistic philosophy. Let’s try not to assume our conclusions, shall we?
Alright ... we’ll see where the debate takes us. Are you going to propose a thesis?
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
(given a scientific study of nature) the intentionality of the human organism is an illusion
Your use of the word “intentionality” is yoked to your theistic philosophy. The scientific study of nature has nothing to do with theistic philosophy. It makes no a priori commitments to theism, and has no teleology to force it in that direction.
You don’t apparently want to work within Dennett’s domain. That’s fine. Let me know the parameters and I’ll put myself on the learning curve as far as understanding where you are coming from (I won’t say ‘where you’re going’ because I don’t want to assume a teleology ... a little joke here )
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John Brand - 01 August 2008 01:20 PM
How do you know that this is the case?
You’d best read that thread over at the Dawkins forum, and try a little harder to develop a rudimentary understanding of the scientific enterprise. You are asking the wrong question here, because you’ve become used to the philosophical approach to “knowing”. Science is interested in propositions that may be falsified by application of the scientific method. “Intentionality” is not defined in such a way that an experiment may be designed to identify it as a phenomenon of neurophysiology or falsify it as an aspect of a theory of human psychology.
I’m actually looking forward to finding out what you are talking about, SC.
Salt Creek - 01 August 2008 03:35 PM
John, you will not find it productive to engage in dialogue with scientists if you cannot set aside your very obvious biases in the direction of theistic philosophy, and if you cannot admit that your understanding of science is woefully deficient. The subject of “happiness” cannot be discussed scientifically at the present time. We can discuss the neurochemistry of endorphins, for example, but the babblings of the “human potential movement” are philosophical, and not psychological at all.
Alrighty, then,
Empty your mind of all thoughts.
Let your heart be at peace.Tao te Ching
In other words, SC tends to make the argument about me (ad hominem) rather than engaging in serious discussion (as per the present conversation). My point with the , is to say “why can’t you just consider me invisible, inaudible?” rather than getting so upset.
What? You want carte blanche to blather on ad nauseam about your invisible divinities? You should get some information about how repulsive such arrant nonsense is to a person whose brains have not been knocked out by sophistry.
Engaging with you, John, is rather like engaging with a wad of 2000-year-old chewing gum. That you think your shit doesn’t stink is a testament to how much damage your theophily has done you. Sounding brass, and all that rot.
No, I don’t want carte blanche ... I completely missed your Post #59 until a few minutes ago. Let’s get Back to the Future and see if the nature of my conversations with you can’t evolve into something more productive.
I’m still reserving the right to pursue conversations within domains you currently find obnoxious ... not to show off or in spite; rather, because I think it is more productive than what I have seen in Dennett, Harris et al when it comes to researching the present day problems created by whatever it is that is behind what Dennett is calling intentionality. You may change my mind about this ... depending on how empty I can make it during the learning curve period.
One thing I notice about this ‘manufacturing definitions for happiness’ is that the process seems to remove the individual will for self determination from the question.
Actually this is exactly what I am doing. Would you not define our free will as the ability to do what we desire to do? Would you not agree that no will could be completely neutral, otherwise it would never act, or, at best, the choices that we make would be completely based on chance. However, we choose based on what we desire to do. Our desires are those things that we crave for, or those things that make us happy. When faced with a difficult decision, we are not deciding whether to be happy or sad, but whether one thing is better suited to make us happier. Therefore, the question of what makes us happy precedes the question of the will. Therefore, I pose this question, do those things which trigger a chemical reaction, whereby we say that we are happy, valuable in themselves, or directly connect to something valuable? Am I right to assume that your answer is that those things that make us happy are to complex and various to determine that? If that is the case, I respect your answer, even though I disagree.
Thus, in the classic christian sense, we can never be happy until we are home.
Or better yet, “We will never reach complete and perfect happiness until we are home.” We see in the quote from Augustine, and in many other of his quotes, that it is possible to be pleased by the things in this world, but they do not make us entirely happy. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who summarized Augustine’s point this way, “The problem is not that we seek pleasure, but that we are too easily pleased.”
Let me propose, then, as a definition of happiness that we consider Aristotle’s: “happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue.” But, to link it back to the scriptures which Augustine used as the basis for his own idea of happinesss, let’s consider the following quote from 2 Peter 1:3ff
“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him ... through these he has given us his great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world caused by evil desires”
This definition is a better link to Aristotle than what we find in Augustine. Happiness is a state of the soul where we ‘participate in the divine nature’ through the application of the truths found in scripture.
Does that sound alright, Shane?
I do not see the definite connection to happiness in 2 Peter 1:3. I see that perfectly applying all of the commands of God to ones life, something impossible to do, gives one access into the divine nature. Which is an exceedingly great thing, but I cannot argue that Peter has happiness in mind when he penned this.
Seligman agrees with Aristotle that happiness comes from within “knowing what your strengths are” and in community:
The good life consists of the roots that lead to flow. It consists of first knowing what your signature strengths are and then recrafting your life to use them more — recrafting your work, your romance, your friendships, your leisure, and your parenting to deploy the things you’re best at. What you get out of that is not the propensity to giggle a lot; what you get is flow, and the more you deploy your highest strengths the more flow you get in life. (from Eudaemonia, the Good Life
However this is only one of the three happy lives, and the connection to the community is only in the context of dealing with ones reality, and not meant to be understood as a necessity to the good life. However, that was just a side note, no big deal.
Note that I am making relationship a function of relationship: Christ can only make you happy to the extent that you are involved in meaningful relationships with others and especially those from outside of your own comfort zone.”
I have no clue what you are implying in this. If you are saying that our relationship with others is a function of our relationship with Christ, I would agree. If you are saying that a relationship with Christ is a function of our relationships with each other, I would say that I affirm a historical Jesus who is currently personable, and do not find Barth’s mystical Jesus convincing. If you are implying that our relationships with others is a necessary function of our relationship with Christ, to the extent that apart from others we cannot commune with Christ, I would need evidence of that.
The other aspect of your question concerns the matter of who Christ is. If we go with the early Christian view of Justin Martyr, for example, Christ is a great deal wider than a midiatorial role would imply:
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably [i.e. ‘in accordance with reason’] are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists (First Apology.XLVI)
Well, I can not say that this is the classical view of Christ. Especially considering that Justin only spoke this in answer to the false dilemma of, “But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible—let us anticipate and solve the difficulty.”
In response to that problem, he made the argument that you presented. That would make that statement not as a universally agreed upon statement of the Christian church, but as an argument for inclusivism. Inclusivism has been commonly rejected by classic Christianity. Second, one of the main goals of this apology was to prove that Christians were not atheists. I would conclude that Justin does not mean to call men like Socrates and Abraham atheists, but instead to prove that just like Christians they do believe in God.
So, full enjoyment of Christ would be found in relationship with atheists, wouldn’t you agree?
I do not know, what exactly you wish to prove with this whole argument, therefore, at this point and time I wish to decline from answering that, until I can be sure that my answer either which way will not trap me.
Yet, Jesus said that the law is fulfilled as we love one another. And, the law claimed that fulfillment of its precepts would lead to shalom or peace. Again, note that enjoyment of Christ is a function of relationship in my definition. An individual may enjoy solitude (and I enjoy taking a quiet walk in the woods to be alone with my thoughts) but this joy is enhanced to the degree that I avail myself of meaningful relationship with others.
If you are entirely consistent with the classic Christian view, Shane, full enjoyment of Christ can only happen when we ‘see him as he is’ (1 John); that is, when we are in heaven. Or, do you not take the classic christian view?
Well since I cannot fulfill this law, my only hope is in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. It is through this that I have any relationship with God at all, and it is through this that I place my hope and my joy. My righteousness that brings me peace is not my righteousness, but Christ. Therefore, whether I love others or not, I look solely to the cross of Christ. If I do not love others, I find joy in the mercy of God. If I do love others, I find joy in the power of God working in my life. Therefore, the extent to which I love others has no bearing on my joy in Christ, because, either way I rejoice.
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who summarized Augustine’s point this way, “The problem is not that we seek pleasure, but that we are too easily pleased.”
The following is an example of the way in which someone may be “too easily pleased”, that is, enjoy the simple pleasure of a pat answer wrapped up in a pretty package that contains only nonsense:
Shane - 02 August 2008 07:13 AM
Well since I cannot fulfill this law, my only hope is in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. It is through this that I have any relationship with God at all, and it is through this that I place my hope and my joy. My righteousness that brings me peace is not my righteousness, but Christ. Therefore, whether I love others or not, I look solely to the cross of Christ. If I do not love others, I find joy in the mercy of God. If I do love others, I find joy in the power of God working in my life. Therefore, the extent to which I love others has no bearing on my joy in Christ, because, either way I rejoice.
Lewis is correct, but he was projecting onto others precisely those flaws he recognized (dimly) in himself. Shane, you’re doing the same thing, going down the same road, with this “argument”. It’s an answer that has been given to you; one easily concludes that it was force-fed to you when you were too young to resist it. In fact, if you look closely, it’s just a string of nonsense words you have made into something to suit yourself. That this is part of Jefe’s point seems so far to have utterly escaped you. That you are content with such bullshit says everything about you I need to know to dismiss you as yet another sorry fuckwit who has to see his own profession of faith in black and white on a computer monitor to go on believing it.
If you walked up to me on the street and tried to present such an argument, I could simply turn my back on you and walk away, perhaps after delivering to you a couple of mild insults intended to let you know I think you’re nuts. If you persisted in inflicting this “message” upon me enthusiastically enough, I’d summon the medics and have them administer thorazine.
When you showed up here, you put on the appearance of being a student of some sort, but now, lying there on the screen in black and white is yet another pile of dogshit dogmatism. I predicted it in my very first response to you. By all means, you and John may continue to feel each other up in public here, but I suggest you both go home and get between the sheets with Jeebus for a holy threesome.
Shane - 02 August 2008 06:07 AM
When faced with a difficult decision, we are not deciding whether to be happy or sad, but whether one thing is better suited to make us happier.
This is trivially self-evident. Do you really want to revisit this topic in such a pedestrian fashion? Do you really want to revisit the concept of sin dressed up in modern psychological jargon? Are you really that much of a pompous prig? By all means find your joy in knowing Jesus, having a personal relationship with him, and loving others as he loved us. Leave me out of it, unless you want to make “love” into something that is not “inflicted” on others without regard to what they might “want”.
Shane - 19 July 2008 08:23 AM
I think ol’ shane is asking us to guess what his definition of a happy life is. That is usually what such a question is about.
Seeing several of the Christians on this forum, I understand why you would be hesitant to give a real response. However this is an honest question. In order to prove that Christ brings true happiness, I would have to have a sufficient definition of happiness that is agreed upon by most, wouldn’t I?
Apparently not. What was not “real” about my initial response, you weasely wad of internal contradictions and boilerplate piety?
Shane - 02 August 2008 07:13 AM
My righteousness that brings me peace is not my righteousness, but Christ.
You’re dreaming, fella. Best be advised not to do it in places where you are likely to walk into walls.
.
) 
