Ask a philosopher

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: Aristotelian1

How does one organize a collective of like minds in a city with none like the intended association of free religious belief in a united family of friends?

I do not understand the question.

Well then I guess you aren't fit to answer and are philosophically stumped. I want to form an organization of spiritual and not dogmatic or religiously intolerant people.

I want to encourage people to explore all the wise faiths and not reject everything besides the religion they grew up with.

I want to organize people who think like this, that all religions are essentially true paths to The One God who is Holy beyond comprehension and is not a religiously bias God(ess?).

And I want to get people to read all the scriptures of the wise faiths plus the Apocryphal books.

So I can form a spiritual not religious community of enlightened (not intolerant) souls who b want to learn and share knowledge.

I'd join you on that, i don't take one view on any religions but look at many and find a middle ground for which i can base a belief or put my mind to then keep going,,I won't find all the answers but that's part of finding knowledge/Enlightenment.

originally posted by: Nemtaku
why do the globalist insist on depopulating the "un worthy"? what's their philosophy ? a reply to: Aristotelian1

They have a very specific mental illness. About 2.5 percent of the world or less has it. They think that all humans are evil and that to be safe they have to kill everybody. These particular psychotics just happen to have a lot of money. Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, etc. They all had the same mental illness.

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: Aristotelian1

How does one organize a collective of like minds in a city with none like the intended association of free religious belief in a united family of friends?

I do not understand the question.

Well then I guess you aren't fit to answer and are philosophically stumped. I want to form an organization of spiritual and not dogmatic or religiously intolerant people.

I want to encourage people to explore all the wise faiths and not reject everything besides the religion they grew up with.

I want to organize people who think like this, that all religions are essentially true paths to The One God who is Holy beyond comprehension and is not a religiously bias God(ess?).

And I want to get people to read all the scriptures of the wise faiths plus the Apocryphal books.

So I can form a spiritual not religious community of enlightened (not intolerant) souls who b want to learn and share knowledge.

That's a question of organization, not philosophy.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

If What you know is everything you do know, and if you knew 'how you knew' something then it would be part of everything you do know, thus it would be included in what you know. If you did not know 'how you knew' something, then it would not be part of everything you know, therefore it would not be part of what you know. Thus am I to take that you do not really know how you know the things you know?

Also, epistemology is a branch of philosophy. I think John Locke was sorta right, but only when it comes to social knowledge. That is we are born tabula rasa about social contracts, language, money and such, but I still think Thomas Hobbes was more right, being that we are all still animals, and they are born with some instincts. These instincts and social practices are driven by the natural process of evolution. That is how I think we know things, or perhaps have come to know things.

Can you tell me what you know about epistemology?

And I thought you might have read that book.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Aristotelian1

If What you know is everything you do know, and if you knew 'how you knew' something then it would be part of everything you do know, thus it would be included in what you know. If you did not know 'how you knew' something, then it would not be part of everything you know, therefore it would not be part of what you know. Thus am I to take that you do not really know how you know the things you know?

Also, epistemology is a branch of philosophy. I think John Locke was sorta right, but only when it comes to social knowledge. That is we are born tabula rasa about social contracts, language, money and such, but I still think Thomas Hobbes was more right, being that we are all still animals, and they are born with some instincts. These instincts and social practices are driven by the natural process of evolution. That is how I think we know things, or perhaps have come to know things.

Can you tell me what you know about epistemology?

And I thought you might have read that book.

Yes a correction is in order. I'm going to supplant "what I know" with "that I know." Thus there is a distinction between how I know what I know and that I know it. I'm busy right now but I'll be back later to explain my epistemology.

a reply to: hubrisinxs
The first thing that must be known is that is it possible to know about yourself and the rest of existence. Words like "empiricism" and "rationalism" don't have definite meanings; they are nebulous and unscientific terms that philosophers have been fruitlessly quibbling about for centuries. The correct epistemology was just recently discovered, literally in the twenty-first century. I was not sure if I would ever find it, but then I did. It was discovered by a man named Jim Diamond and it is called the "Genius Formula." You are a person who is genuinely aware, so this is the most important thing you will have ever been shown. Buy his first lecture and listen to it. And may you never be the same. www.megagenius.com...





Ps: Lewis was a good fiction writer but a horrible apologeticist.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Are you Jim Diamond? If not, you really think after on lecture from this guy that you are qualified to call all other ways of thinking obsolete?

Personally, I think this guy has seen too many episodes of Unsealed: Alien Files on Netflix:

MEGA GENIUS®: We have "space neighbors."

INTERVIEWER: That's a bold statement. Do you have any concern about being ridiculed by astronomers, rocket scientists, and the like for expressing that opinion?

MEGA GENIUS®: Well, first, astronomers and rocket scientists have considerably lower IQ's than I do. Second, my statement was not an opinion; it was a statement of certainty from beyond the top of the IQ scale and it is also the truth. And truth bows to no one. Third, the most renown astronomer of our times, Dr. Carl Sagan, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor of astronomy at Cornell University, speculated that the Moon and Mars may have been used as bases by extra-terrestrials. Fourth, the most distinguished rocket scientist of modern times and the foremost figure in America's space program, Dr. Wernher Von Braun, once stated that we didn't develop all our modern technology ourselves -- that we had help from out there. And fifth, a number of our astronauts have originated similarly verifying statements. For example, Gordon Cooper has said that the United States Government has made contact with extra-terrestrials. Astronaut Story Musgrave, who has been in space more times than any other astronaut, has said that small, thin, gray-skinned extra-terrestrials, with large almond-shaped eyes, are actually out there. The truth is that irrefutable evidence of the existence of extraterrestrials and their voyages exists on the Moon, Mars, and other planetary bodies within our own solar system, and even on Earth. For instance, one only needs to look deeply enough beneath the area of the Sphinx, in Egypt. Although some of this evidence has not yet come to light, almost all of what has been discovered is currently being withheld from the public for fear of upsetting the religious, political, and civil status quo. It will all begin to surface, however, in the near future. I know all the truth about these matters in exhaustive detail--far more than any of the governments of this planet know--and I intend to record some lectures soon that will cover that entire matter.

Link

Sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me. I think I will stick to raising my IQ by reading and practicing mathematics.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Are you Jim Diamond? If not, you really think after on lecture from this guy that you are qualified to call all other ways of thinking obsolete?

Personally, I think this guy has seen too many episodes of Unsealed: Alien Files on Netflix:

MEGA GENIUS®: We have "space neighbors."

INTERVIEWER: That's a bold statement. Do you have any concern about being ridiculed by astronomers, rocket scientists, and the like for expressing that opinion?

MEGA GENIUS®: Well, first, astronomers and rocket scientists have considerably lower IQ's than I do. Second, my statement was not an opinion; it was a statement of certainty from beyond the top of the IQ scale and it is also the truth. And truth bows to no one. Third, the most renown astronomer of our times, Dr. Carl Sagan, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor of astronomy at Cornell University, speculated that the Moon and Mars may have been used as bases by extra-terrestrials. Fourth, the most distinguished rocket scientist of modern times and the foremost figure in America's space program, Dr. Wernher Von Braun, once stated that we didn't develop all our modern technology ourselves -- that we had help from out there. And fifth, a number of our astronauts have originated similarly verifying statements. For example, Gordon Cooper has said that the United States Government has made contact with extra-terrestrials. Astronaut Story Musgrave, who has been in space more times than any other astronaut, has said that small, thin, gray-skinned extra-terrestrials, with large almond-shaped eyes, are actually out there. The truth is that irrefutable evidence of the existence of extraterrestrials and their voyages exists on the Moon, Mars, and other planetary bodies within our own solar system, and even on Earth. For instance, one only needs to look deeply enough beneath the area of the Sphinx, in Egypt. Although some of this evidence has not yet come to light, almost all of what has been discovered is currently being withheld from the public for fear of upsetting the religious, political, and civil status quo. It will all begin to surface, however, in the near future. I know all the truth about these matters in exhaustive detail--far more than any of the governments of this planet know--and I intend to record some lectures soon that will cover that entire matter.

Link

Sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me. I think I will stick to raising my IQ by reading and practicing mathematics.

No I am not Jim Diamond. And good luck.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: Aristotelian1

How does one organize a collective of like minds in a city with none like the intended association of free religious belief in a united family of friends?

I do not understand the question.

Well then I guess you aren't fit to answer and are philosophically stumped. I want to form an organization of spiritual and not dogmatic or religiously intolerant people.

I want to encourage people to explore all the wise faiths and not reject everything besides the religion they grew up with.

I want to organize people who think like this, that all religions are essentially true paths to The One God who is Holy beyond comprehension and is not a religiously bias God(ess?).

And I want to get people to read all the scriptures of the wise faiths plus the Apocryphal books.

So I can form a spiritual not religious community of enlightened (not intolerant) souls who b want to learn and share knowledge.

That's a question of organization, not philosophy.

And that's a dodge of a (non) answer.

Organization has philosophically related elements of how and when, etc.

It's also a philosophical organization I asked for advice on, you offered to help without solicitation and now that you have no clue how to answer you say that it's strictly an organizational matter but it isn't.

Proper philosophy could help me towards an epiphany like how I could start this philosophical organization of enlightened souls.

a reply to: enterthestage
Have fun. www.scientology.org...

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Philosophy has achieved nothing but bring into existence a lot of fancy words.

Th Philosopher aims to remove mental barriers in order to free us and expand our minds. In reality , they remove barriers only to leave people in a barren landscape since they have no answers, only fancy words.

a reply to: Aristotelian1


What is your impression of the, "Stanford Prison Experiment"?

And can you elaborate in layman's terms the definition of "Qualia"?

originally posted by: crowdedskies
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Philosophy has achieved nothing but bring into existence a lot of fancy words.

Th Philosopher aims to remove mental barriers in order to free us and expand our minds. In reality , they remove barriers only to leave people in a barren landscape since they have no answers, only fancy words.

Some of us do have the answers.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Aristotelian1


What is your impression of the, "Stanford Prison Experiment"?

And can you elaborate in layman's terms the definition of "Qualia"?

The experiment proves nothing than the fact that some men can be cruel to others, something we already knew. Qualia apparently doesn't have a standard definition, so I don't know what it is either.

a reply to: Aristotelian1


As a result of the first experiment women were no longer included in subsequent repetitions in respect to the role of "Prisoner". This experiment presents and in my opinion. A certain consistency in relation to humankind akin to a processing of information, allowing for authority figures to make the decisions.

A consistent argument from the frame altogether.

Qualia relates also to the ability to overcome what some would consider insurmountable obstacles due to dedication to a task and to be specific one that is really important to the observer.