| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"lawrey" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2006 04:45:50 AM |
| Object: |
Get Serious! |
Hi! to all you budding, enthisiastic philosophers.
This morning, for the first time I browsed this site to see whether I
could trawl some crumb of Philosophical interest and whilst all your
comments have links to some degree, to everyday philosophical
discussion I found it a little frivolous, 'over the garden wall'
gossip-type. with the odd technical reference, i.e. to a flagellate
protozoan "monas". Far to heavy for my taste. May I then bring you back
to Philosophy by inviting you to read: "Philosophy of One on the Many".
Completely free on the net. Go to: www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk and get
some real discussion going!
My Sincere regards,
Lawrey.
.
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Get Serious! |
05 Oct 2006 05:23:58 AM |
|
|
lawrey wrote:
Hi! to all you budding, enthisiastic philosophers.
This morning, for the first time I browsed this site to see whether I
could trawl some crumb of Philosophical interest and whilst all your
comments have links to some degree, to everyday philosophical
discussion I found it a little frivolous, 'over the garden wall'
gossip-type. with the odd technical reference, i.e. to a flagellate
protozoan "monas". Far to heavy for my taste. May I then bring you back
to Philosophy by inviting you to read: "Philosophy of One on the Many".
Completely free on the net. Go to: www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk and get
some real discussion going!
My Sincere regards,
Lawrey.
I checked through your site.
You limit yourself to the middle east and the western world, no
mentioning of the philosophers of India and China.
You get a plus point for including Jesus as a philosopher but a minus
point for missing his most important ideas.
You concentrate too much on people who have called themselves
philosophers, no clear definition of philosophy even though the
beginning of your foreword has some good points.
You can learn from my texts at:
http://humanist.250free.com/
http://wikihost.org/wikis/speaker1/
Using a chat system for serious discussions is not a good idea, as
chatting needs immediate response, no time for carefully reading what
another person is saying, no time to carefullt edit your own reply.
Newsgroups are much better for serious discussions as you can access
them when you have time, and other people at other times, it gives time
for reflection and careful thought.
Newsgroups have the negative side that there is a lot of crap and a
background noise, but if you learn to find the serious people in
newsgroups they are better than any moderated private web forum or chat
room.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lawrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Get Serious! |
06 Oct 2006 08:58:52 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
lawrey wrote:
Hi! to all you budding, enthisiastic philosophers.
This morning, for the first time I browsed this site to see whether I
could trawl some crumb of Philosophical interest and whilst all your
comments have links to some degree, to everyday philosophical
discussion I found it a little frivolous, 'over the garden wall'
gossip-type. with the odd technical reference, i.e. to a flagellate
protozoan "monas". Far to heavy for my taste. May I then bring you back
to Philosophy by inviting you to read: "Philosophy of One on the Many".
Completely free on the net. Go to: www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk and get
some real discussion going!
My Sincere regards,
Lawrey.
I checked through your site.
You limit yourself to the middle east and the western world, no
mentioning of the philosophers of India and China.
You get a plus point for including Jesus as a philosopher but a minus
point for missing his most important ideas.
You concentrate too much on people who have called themselves
philosophers, no clear definition of philosophy even though the
beginning of your foreword has some good points.
You can learn from my texts at:
http://humanist.250free.com/
http://wikihost.org/wikis/speaker1/
Using a chat system for serious discussions is not a good idea, as
chatting needs immediate response, no time for carefully reading what
another person is saying, no time to carefullt edit your own reply.
Newsgroups are much better for serious discussions as you can access
them when you have time, and other people at other times, it gives time
for reflection and careful thought.
Newsgroups have the negative side that there is a lot of crap and a
background noise, but if you learn to find the serious people in
newsgroups they are better than any moderated private web forum or chat
room.
--
Roger J.
Roger,
It was my intention to write about the Western Thought Only and my
main purpose was to
show through history and going back to the Book of the Dead following
through to the twentieth century, how god and religion came into being
and was foist upon the world. So my book in truth is a critique of all
religions, and to demonstrate the massive con-trick the
philosophers/theologians throughout recorded time have managed to
acheive with gret success. The medium I chose was the actual actual
history of philosophy and I quote from 600 philosophers works and
thoughts. It has taken me avery long time. So don'tknock it too hard!
In the sense that Monotheism has been going off and on since about 800
B.C. I grant you that it is the oldest form but it was derived from
Polytheism which was all their was until about 1375 B.C. Even then it
took many, many years for Monotheism to take hold. and Polytheism was
still rife in the classic and early christian era's. Read your
history!!!!!!
Respectfully
Lawrey.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Get Serious! |
06 Oct 2006 10:04:48 AM |
|
|
lawrey wrote:
It was my intention to write about the Western Thought Only and my
main purpose was to
show through history and going back to the Book of the Dead following
through to the twentieth century, how god and religion came into being
and was foist upon the world. So my book in truth is a critique of all
religions, and to demonstrate the massive con-trick the
philosophers/theologians throughout recorded time have managed to
acheive with gret success. The medium I chose was the actual actual
history of philosophy and I quote from 600 philosophers works and
thoughts. It has taken me avery long time. So don'tknock it too hard!
I hope you didn't take my critique too hard, you have collected a lot
of information and the site is an impressive history of classical
western philosophy, with special tension on religion and debates about
religion.
In the sense that Monotheism has been going off and on since about 800
B.C. I grant you that it is the oldest form but it was derived from
Polytheism which was all their was until about 1375 B.C. Even then it
took many, many years for Monotheism to take hold. and Polytheism was
still rife in the classic and early christian era's. Read your
history!!!!!!
Respectfully
Lawrey.
One thing I think you have missed is that Jesus said many things that
were against the old testament religion, in some ways he was an
important critical voice against the ideals in the old religion.
The old testament ideals were about manliness, manly honor, revenge,
anger, the creation of men out of boys.
Jesus said things which were the total opposite of those ideals, like
"why can't we all be like children" or " forgive and turn the other
cheek instead of revenging every blow to uphold your manly honor"
(freely interpreting Jesus ideas).
He was an early humanist, a denier of the old testament religion.
(but he was confused, and often said things that supported the old
religion too)
That's why Jefferson cut out all quotations of Jesus and made his own
bible, with another message of enlightenment instead of the traditional
values in the old bible.
See "Jefferson bible" on the web.
People who wanted to follow the ideals of Jesus instead of the old
testament religion created their own church, under the leadership of
Marcian, and it took the catholic church 1200 years to finally kill off
the last of their followers.
In the Vatican web site you can read that marcianism was the greatest
threat the catholic church has ever faced.
It didn't help much though, that they managed to outroot the kathars in
southern France in the 13th century.
Only a few hundred years later humanist values came back, with renewed
energy, and the church was shaken in its foundations. It cracked up
into protestantism and catholicism, it had to be reformed, and the
church lost its worldly power.
From that point in time, in the 16th century we have seen a new
thinking climate and a new society grow up. Atheism (humanism) took
over from theism, democracy won over dictatorship, science and
technology could use the new freedom from the church to develop like
never before. The era of enlightenment spread the ideas of humanism
further and we have yet not seen the end of that development.
Old social traditions, which is what religion is all about, are not
easy to change.
Old ideologies are replaced with new ideologies which support the same
social processes and traditional values and people keep on living like
before.
They are maybe not reading the bible anymore, but they listen to rock
songs or watch movies and tv shows which spread the same support for
the old social system as the old testament. They have thrown away an
old smokescreen and they are adopting a new one, but the social reality
behind the smokescreen is in many ways the same as it has been for
thousands of years.
But at the same time we see old traditional systems break up and become
confused.
I have studied your web site, and written down what I think about it.
Now, please read my web site and write down what you think about that.
http://humanist.250free.com/
It's a bit unorganized, but you can start reading anywhere and you will
soon see where I am going.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lawrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Get Serious! |
07 Oct 2006 07:40:35 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
lawrey wrote:
It was my intention to write about the Western Thought Only and my
main purpose was to
show through history and going back to the Book of the Dead following
through to the twentieth century, how god and religion came into being
and was foist upon the world. So my book in truth is a critique of all
religions, and to demonstrate the massive con-trick the
philosophers/theologians throughout recorded time have managed to
acheive with gret success. The medium I chose was the actual actual
history of philosophy and I quote from 600 philosophers works and
thoughts. It has taken me avery long time. So don'tknock it too hard!
I hope you didn't take my critique too hard, you have collected a lot
of information and the site is an impressive history of classical
western philosophy, with special tension on religion and debates about
religion.
In the sense that Monotheism has been going off and on since about 800
B.C. I grant you that it is the oldest form but it was derived from
Polytheism which was all their was until about 1375 B.C. Even then it
took many, many years for Monotheism to take hold. and Polytheism was
still rife in the classic and early christian era's. Read your
history!!!!!!
Respectfully
Lawrey.
One thing I think you have missed is that Jesus said many things that
were against the old testament religion, in some ways he was an
important critical voice against the ideals in the old religion.
The old testament ideals were about manliness, manly honor, revenge,
anger, the creation of men out of boys.
Jesus said things which were the total opposite of those ideals, like
"why can't we all be like children" or " forgive and turn the other
cheek instead of revenging every blow to uphold your manly honor"
(freely interpreting Jesus ideas).
He was an early humanist, a denier of the old testament religion.
(but he was confused, and often said things that supported the old
religion too)
That's why Jefferson cut out all quotations of Jesus and made his own
bible, with another message of enlightenment instead of the traditional
values in the old bible.
See "Jefferson bible" on the web.
People who wanted to follow the ideals of Jesus instead of the old
testament religion created their own church, under the leadership of
Marcian, and it took the catholic church 1200 years to finally kill off
the last of their followers.
In the Vatican web site you can read that marcianism was the greatest
threat the catholic church has ever faced.
It didn't help much though, that they managed to outroot the kathars in
southern France in the 13th century.
Only a few hundred years later humanist values came back, with renewed
energy, and the church was shaken in its foundations. It cracked up
into protestantism and catholicism, it had to be reformed, and the
church lost its worldly power.
From that point in time, in the 16th century we have seen a new
thinking climate and a new society grow up. Atheism (humanism) took
over from theism, democracy won over dictatorship, science and
technology could use the new freedom from the church to develop like
never before. The era of enlightenment spread the ideas of humanism
further and we have yet not seen the end of that development.
Old social traditions, which is what religion is all about, are not
easy to change.
Old ideologies are replaced with new ideologies which support the same
social processes and traditional values and people keep on living like
before.
They are maybe not reading the bible anymore, but they listen to rock
songs or watch movies and tv shows which spread the same support for
the old social system as the old testament. They have thrown away an
old smokescreen and they are adopting a new one, but the social reality
behind the smokescreen is in many ways the same as it has been for
thousands of years.
But at the same time we see old traditional systems break up and become
confused.
I have studied your web site, and written down what I think about it.
Now, please read my web site and write down what you think about that.
http://humanist.250free.com/
It's a bit unorganized, but you can start reading anywhere and you will
soon see where I am going.
--
Roger J.
Will visityour site today!
Lawrey
.
|
|
|
| User: "lawrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Get Serious! |
07 Oct 2006 08:46:09 AM |
|
|
lawrey wrote:
Roger Johansson wrote:
lawrey wrote:
It was my intention to write about the Western Thought Only and my
main purpose was to
show through history and going back to the Book of the Dead following
through to the twentieth century, how god and religion came into being
and was foist upon the world. So my book in truth is a critique of all
religions, and to demonstrate the massive con-trick the
philosophers/theologians throughout recorded time have managed to
acheive with gret success. The medium I chose was the actual actual
history of philosophy and I quote from 600 philosophers works and
thoughts. It has taken me avery long time. So don'tknock it too hard!
I hope you didn't take my critique too hard, you have collected a lot
of information and the site is an impressive history of classical
western philosophy, with special tension on religion and debates about
religion.
In the sense that Monotheism has been going off and on since about 800
B.C. I grant you that it is the oldest form but it was derived from
Polytheism which was all their was until about 1375 B.C. Even then it
took many, many years for Monotheism to take hold. and Polytheism was
still rife in the classic and early christian era's. Read your
history!!!!!!
Respectfully
Lawrey.
One thing I think you have missed is that Jesus said many things that
were against the old testament religion, in some ways he was an
important critical voice against the ideals in the old religion.
The old testament ideals were about manliness, manly honor, revenge,
anger, the creation of men out of boys.
Jesus said things which were the total opposite of those ideals, like
"why can't we all be like children" or " forgive and turn the other
cheek instead of revenging every blow to uphold your manly honor"
(freely interpreting Jesus ideas).
He was an early humanist, a denier of the old testament religion.
(but he was confused, and often said things that supported the old
religion too)
That's why Jefferson cut out all quotations of Jesus and made his own
bible, with another message of enlightenment instead of the traditional
values in the old bible.
See "Jefferson bible" on the web.
People who wanted to follow the ideals of Jesus instead of the old
testament religion created their own church, under the leadership of
Marcian, and it took the catholic church 1200 years to finally kill off
the last of their followers.
In the Vatican web site you can read that marcianism was the greatest
threat the catholic church has ever faced.
It didn't help much though, that they managed to outroot the kathars in
southern France in the 13th century.
Only a few hundred years later humanist values came back, with renewed
energy, and the church was shaken in its foundations. It cracked up
into protestantism and catholicism, it had to be reformed, and the
church lost its worldly power.
From that point in time, in the 16th century we have seen a new
thinking climate and a new society grow up. Atheism (humanism) took
over from theism, democracy won over dictatorship, science and
technology could use the new freedom from the church to develop like
never before. The era of enlightenment spread the ideas of humanism
further and we have yet not seen the end of that development.
Old social traditions, which is what religion is all about, are not
easy to change.
Old ideologies are replaced with new ideologies which support the same
social processes and traditional values and people keep on living like
before.
They are maybe not reading the bible anymore, but they listen to rock
songs or watch movies and tv shows which spread the same support for
the old social system as the old testament. They have thrown away an
old smokescreen and they are adopting a new one, but the social reality
behind the smokescreen is in many ways the same as it has been for
thousands of years.
But at the same time we see old traditional systems break up and become
confused.
I have studied your web site, and written down what I think about it.
Now, please read my web site and write down what you think about that.
http://humanist.250free.com/
It's a bit unorganized, but you can start reading anywhere and you will
soon see where I am going.
--
Roger J.
Will visityour site today!
Lawrey
Roger,
As promised I went to your site and scan read your thoughts on
Humanism: The doctrine that emphasise the prime importance of the human
factor in the universe. I. 2.& 3.
There is so much I can relate to and yet I felt constantly that I
needed to interupt and or, intercede in some places where the script
seems to go off at a tangent: not necessarily a criticism, perhaps
showing that I was tweeked into conjoining. It rambles a bit for my
personal liking; I like to stick to the point and reach a positive
conclusion, I don't like things left hanging in the air! I am a simple
man. We differ in as much as having been brought up in a very strict
religious environment until the age of 17, when I started to question
and got unsatisfactory answers. I determined to discover "The Truth!"
which still eludes me 50 years on. But my research brought me very
close to the answers I sought and felt comfortable with.
So that today I know there is no such being as god (an all-encompassing
benevolent deity), either physical or metaphysical (which is unprovable
anyway, depending on how well you understand metaphysics). And that all
religions are built on a false premise: That of a god! I am completely
relaxed with the idea.
As for your portion on Love: you make it sound so complicated when to
me i is such a simple sensation of ideas and feelings dependant on the
force and type of love one feels, and the understanding of the role of
desires both mental, sexual and common physicality.
The desire to be close but not necessarily to touch. Then the
extraordinary love for another Creature outside of the human sphere and
the love of Nature; The love of Life and the love of Oneself? There are
so many questions as yet unaswered and or misunderstood. I suppose I
would not expect that any one person has all the answers.
I will visit again. My sincere wishes.
Lawrey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Get Serious! |
05 Oct 2006 12:01:02 PM |
|
|
lawrey wrote:
Hi! to all you budding, enthisiastic philosophers.
This morning, for the first time I browsed this site to see whether I
could trawl some crumb of Philosophical interest and whilst all your
comments have links to some degree, to everyday philosophical
discussion I found it a little frivolous, 'over the garden wall'
gossip-type. with the odd technical reference, i.e. to a flagellate
protozoan "monas". Far to heavy for my taste. May I then bring you back
to Philosophy by inviting you to read: "Philosophy of One on the Many".
Completely free on the net. Go to: www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk and get
some real discussion going!
My Sincere regards,
Lawrey.
Welcome brother, to "the desert of the real" (the matrix) and the
wreckage of ultra-pluralistic modernism and post-modernisms. I feel
your yearning for a central focus, a way through this mess we's be born
into here, a simple way to think of it all, a stereotype. Yes the easy
lazy instinctual way of....well I mean seriously my man!
You mean if all 300 of us subscribers go over to your house we will be
more serious? Plane tickets too please.
What is philosophy? This is a notoriously difficult question. One of
the easiest ways of answering it is to say that philosophy is what
philosophers do, and then point to the writings of Plato, Aristotle,
Descartes, Hume, Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, Sartre, and other famous
philosophers. However, this answer is unlikely to be of much use to you
if you are just beginning the subject, as you probably won't have read
anything by these writers. Even if you have, it may still be difficult
to say what they have in common, if indeed there is a relevant
characteristic which they all share. Another approach to the question
is to point out that philosophy is derived from the Greek word meaning
'lover of wisdom'. However, this is rather vague and even less helpful
than saying that philosophy is what philosophers do. So some very
general comments about what philosophy is are needed.
Philosophy is an activity: it is a way of thinking about certain sorts
of question. Its most distinctive feature is its use of logical
argument. Philosophers typically deal in arguments: they either invent
them, criticise other people's, or do both. They also analyse and
clarify concepts. The word 'philosophy' is often used in a much broader
sense than this to mean one's general outlook on life, or else to refer
to some forms of mysticism. I will not be using the word in this
broader sense here: my aim is to illuminate some of the key areas of
discussion in a tradition of thought which began with the Ancient
Greeks and has flourished in the twentieth century, predominantly in
Europe and America.
What kind of things do philosophers working in this tradition argue
about? They often examine beliefs that most of us take for granted most
of the time. They are concerned with questions about what could loosely
be called 'the meaning of life': questions about religion, right and
wrong, the nature of the external world, the mind, science, art, and
numerous other topics. For instance, most people live their lives
without questioning their fundamental beliefs, such as that killing is
wrong. But why is it wrong? What justification is there for saying that
killing is wrong? Is it wrong in every circumstance? And what do I mean
by 'wrong' anyway? These are philosophical questions. Many of our
beliefs, when examined, turn out to have firm foundations; but some do
not. The study of philosophy not only helps us to think clearly about
our prejudices, but also helps to clarify precisely what we do believe.
In the process it develops an ability to argue coherently on a wide
range of issues - a useful transferable skill.
PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS
Nigel Warburton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
