The issue that I have with this is that humans don't let God do the judging. Humans try to do the judging about who loves Him, with the Christians ignoring the whole "judge not" thing. I know for a fact that most followers of Islam have as strong a faith as the many Christians I know. I personally believe that they are all worshipping the same God in different ways, but that is only MY perspective. I have no right to tell anyone else how their faith is to work.
The only thing I'm having a hard time reconciling at the moment is twhy77's use of "the Summa Theologica" AND the word "dude" in the same post.
But, seriously... As I get older, I find the debates over what is right and what is wrong when it comes to philosophy, religion and ideology more and more strange. We don't even fully understand how the human brain works, what's at the bottom of the deepest oceans, what lies deep inside our own planet, nevermind even comprehending the vastness of the universe around us. The older I get, the more I realize how little I truly know. "There are far more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio..."
JEff makes his apology to the Athenian Senate. He knows that he knows nothing and therefore he knows more than all men. Dudes party time Jeff Van Gundy woohoo! No, I think that is the thing about all these debates, is that it is able to humble both sides, to get them to look a little bit closer and say, shiite muslim, I still gotta a lot to learn.
Interesting that he did so after they fulfilled his ambitions. Or it could just be a metaphor for Shakespeare the writer. If I remember correctly the Tempest was his last play. "Drowning" his book and staff might have been him saying, "this is it, no more". And then the master spoke… <i>"We were speaking of belief, beliefs and conditioning. All belief possibly could be said to be the result of some conditioning. Thus the study of history is simply the study of one system of belief deposing another. A psychologically tested belief of our time is, that the central nervous system which feeds its impulses directly to the brain - the conscious and subconscious - is unable to discern between the real and the vividly imagined experience." "To allow the unknown to occur and to occur requires clarity. And where there is clarity there is no choice. But why should anyone listen to me? Why should I speak? Since I know nothing." </i>
First, the Shakespeare situation is much more complicated than that. His plays were published without his permission. He was concerned more with his sonnets and poetry than he was with theater. The metaphor that he is just symoblizing the end of his playwright days very well could be true, but even if it is, one has to look more closely at what that means. I.E. Shakespeare did not want the glory of his work to be for him in his afterlife. He wanted it to stand for something on its own free from him, to encourage others to create and do this wonderful thing called art. Oh, and his ambitions weren't fulfilled, he had regained his dukedom, but was left to rule without his power. Justice had been served, that if anything can be viewed as one of his ambitions, but he had many more, His ambitions were 3, his dukedom, his daughter, and the grave. Politics, Family, Afterlife. I don't know if that helps clarify anything. Second, what are you quoting, who is this master? He makes some wierd assumptions, allowing the unknown to occur, occurance requires clarity, I don't know if that is always the case. I don't think its worded very well but I think that is what it is supposed to mean. I don't know can you explain it further? I'm curious to dialogue about this.
I was a little weirded out when I remembered where I knew that quote from. But hey, if the Beatles could have a guru, then I guess the Monkees could too.
If you don't know what you are trying to convince me of, then I don't know what to say. And did you catch that part of my post that "sharing the faith is an essential part of the faith for many people"? All I'm trying to say is that whenever you say "Back off!" you are trying to convince other to stop doing something they think they should do. And there's nothing wrong with saying "Back off!" sometimes. I just like to challenge the PC notion that trying to change somebody else's faith is necessarily wrong. I think that notion is as much a kind of faith as any religious belief. BTW, twhy77's post about Spinoza and Kierkegaard is exactly what I'm trying to get at--if you can stomach all his philosophical mumble jumble.
Philosophically I agree with you. However it would appear that you and I share a certain vantage point that allows us to see remaining 'open-minded' about a belief system as equatable with humility, and for a person who has a particular 'faith', if they actually do believe that they are in possession of an absolute truth, a human element such as humilty has nothing whatsoever to do with their perspective on differing views. To take it one step further...if you have true faith...if you really are absolutely comitted, than believing that you can 'learn' from other belief systems is antithetical, dishonest, and probably just a waste of time. For those of us whithout a particular faith, it is so easy to comparmentalize other belief systems, and correlate belief in dogmatic exclusion of other views as either a betrayal of self, in terms of surrendering the ability to discern for ourselves, or as arrogance. But for true monotheists, there is little genuine choice, and it doesn't fit comfortably into select aspects of our life like a political affiliation. Always happy to see Spinoza brought into a discussion, though. Geschtalt, anyone?
Honestly I don't care what is an essential part of your faith as long as it does not affect me in some way. I shouldn't have to be forced to say "Back Off!". You should have enough respect for people enough to leave them alone. If you need to be convinced of that then I don't know what to say. It's not faith, just common sense and courtesy. Religious conservatives are always saying gays are trying to "recruit" new members when they are actually the worst offenders.
I think at this point you have to make the distinction between faith and reason. For instance, for me learning about the Eastern Orthodox helped me gain a better understanding of the role of the Pope. My faith was never in the equation, it was all at the level of reason, which was able to better guide my faith. The two must work in harmony, faith always trumping reason. For more info on this you really have to check out The division of Methods and sciences by Aquinas. I understand what you are saying though, but it is important to make this distinction. You don't learn faith. You do faith, its an act. I see what you are saying here and it is fair enough but keep in mind that faith/reason distinction, its central to all philosophy of religion. Here's basically the guidelines I go by for understanding philosophy of religion based on 4 major philosophers. Don't confuse this with phil of God, because thats a whole nother story. Aquinas- Da Man, Faith in harmony with reason. Reason comes to the conclusion that it cannot know the whole, and that it must depend on faith and divine revelation. (think Michael Jordan) Spinoza- A poop laden rationalist. Everything is reason, faith is dumb. Basically wants to use religion to just keep peace. If people worship pickles and it keeps the people peaceful well then give them pickles! (Think Utah Jazz) Kierkeegard- Phenomenologist, either faith or reason, pick one but it can't be both (Think Rockets, can't make up mind what to do) Nietzsche- lil' stinker, no faith no reason, everything is will and the eternal return (eternal return think Buddhist struggle for Nirvana)(Think LA Rapers, try to take all the power) If you read these guys closely this is basically what they do, so don't think I'm trying to impose anything on anybody ok outlaw? Now there are a lot of modern day variations but they all basically fit into this scheme. I thought I should get some basketball in there.
Oh yeah MacBEth thank you for the intelligent and very rational discourse. Its quite pleasant to have that rather than the andymoon run around. JJ andy
Outlaw you are doing the same thing. I think you have to draw a distinction between trying to push beliefs on someone and just listening to someone else's beliefs. I mean how many times have you read Aquinas Summa Theologica and then discussed it with people? There could be stuff in there you haven't seen, that make sense and could make you change your mind about things. OR you know, you can just say, I don't agree. I mean, I'm saying you have this wonderful chance to engage in discourse about these very important topics, and you want to hole yourself up saying, I've got my beliefs leave me alone; have you examined all sides? Only at that point can you really leave the discussion satisfied. I mean honestly maybe you have examined all the points, but it just doesn't seem like you have man? Thats all I'm trying to say. If everybody leaves everybody alone, well then the world becomes a cold desolate iceland full of rabid honeybees. Friendship makes the world go round man. Can't we let Yao unite us and teach us to learn and grow from each other. Now lets all hold hands and thank Uncle Jesse for his words of wisdom. Michelle stop picking your nose, DJ put down that twinkie!
1) No, I agreed with that distinction from the outset, for myself. But not for the purposes of absolute argument. My point was that that that distinction is not a translatable means of arriving at conclusions for someone with faith. DesCartes' contention pre-supposes certain foundations based on the 'facts' of faith based reality, even while trying to use reason to justify faith. That's my point...when you get to ground level, whether it is a moral basis, or a foundation for reason, you have to make certain pre-suppositions or else give way to absolute Sartreism. For example, Aristotle's classifications, while based on the as yet defined principle of impericism, were themselves laden with assumptions of motivation, stimulation, and as sucj the conclusions were based on a belief system, albeit not a 'religious' one. To suppose that man is more virtous than an animal is faith. To suppose that reason answers anything on the basis of observation is faith. To suppose that anything short of Nihilism, irrespective of Aquinas, bacon, DesCartes, or even Lewis,cna be concluded when using a lens subject to inherent prejudice is faith. At some point we need to place our faith in something absolute, or else we need to admit that nothing can be concluded save that. As such, we all operate on some level of faith. Sort of an extension of Aquinas' position on explaining the inexplicable, but with an admission to an alternative that TA was not privy to. So the distinction between faith and reason is hollow,as reason itself can be seen to have a version of faith at it's core. I am not arguing this as my position, but rather contending against your distinction. So for a person of overt faith, as opposed to inherent, it can be argued that they are merely owning up to what we are all prey to. 2) For someone who earlier quoted Socrates, or rather quoted Plato quoting Socrates, you do seem to place a lot of weight in accumulated learning... 3) But if we regard this from the point of view of behavioural inceptors, the primary means of conclusion for a person of faith is not reason. It is almost mutually exclusive with faith, an admission that TA, RDC and others avoided in order to reconcile them. The absolute basis for any monotheistic belief system is an abandonment of dependence on intellectual or sensory defensible conclusions. Think doubting Thomas, or God's demand of sacrifce from Abraham...if you need a reason, let alone reason, you do not 'believe',. but conclude. Therefore the inception for the behaviour of a person of faith cannot and should not resort to an admission of the possibility of alternative explanations contrary to those of faith. Now it does not follow that depenance on a particular faith for explanation of contentious issues is equivalent with dependance on the explanations of a particular religion or religious body...and that is the gap that allows the thin end of the wedge of reason to enter into the thinking of a monotheist. But it would be a natural step, if not a necessary one. 4) Lol...I disagree with your analysis of a couple of the philosophers mentioned, but see the basis for your criticism. For example Spinoza acknowledged the placebic effect of religion, even while saying that it depended on fear and the need for spoon sized answers for it's existence. He wasn't, in my view, as Machiavellian as you propose. I have also argued, on the other hand, that there was a foundation of faith for even his or Freaky Freiderich's contentions. 5) I should explain that I have written in the past that our relationship with science in contemporary Western society equates with a 14th century Western European's relationship with religion in many respects, just so you know where I am coming from. It can be argued that science is the religion of latter 20 and early 21st century western society, IMO. Beleief in reason, then, would be the theological 1st step of faith on the road to religious conversion. Enjoy the discussion.
Whoa! I think you are making a leap here...Someone not agreeing with STA's "proof of God's Existence', for example, should not be supposed to mean that they have neither read nor discussed Summa Theologica. Same applies for agreeing with his distinctions. One might, for example, disagree with STA's concurrence with Damascene's assumption of self-evidence, therefore undermining your agreement with his following conclusions. I realize that I am crossing arguemnts here, but I am trying to prove a point. I have enjoyed the discussion up to this point, but this comment smacks of assumptions of inequiteous exposure to source material that was, I felt, suggested in your response to me, amidst all the intersting discussion. It is dangerous to assume a position of heightened knowledge. In this case I can't speak for outlaw, but as for myself I own a copy of Theologica, among dozens of primary philosophical works.
Macbeth, there is no freaking way you were ever a model. twhy, no I haven't read Aquaman's Summa Theologica and thus have never discussed it but I believe I have listened to and read enough other stuff to know where I stand on the matter. There is a fine line between education and evangelism and I think the difference is education should never be unsolicited. Friendship makes the world go around but what about diversity? Can you be friends with those of different beliefs without trying to make them follow your own?
