Posts by Joseph Murphy10

Done messing around with him, I guess.
Just a little Rascal acting like some young Hegel follower

Amanda Jackson5 said:Well, I can't really pose a question to a vague concept of "an individual" without actually addressing someone, nor can I just broadcast it to every believer in the country all at once. Besides, while it's true that every person is an individual, the real question is how much authenticity they actually possess. That said, a group of American Catholics does share certain universal elements in their faith, so I don't see the harm in addressing them as a collective using terms like "you believers."

You're dreaming if you think there's common ground there. A bunch of Catholic individuals is really just a collection of people with their own separate opinions. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches don't operate that way—and honestly, I doubt most Protestant denominations do either, though I'm no expert on their specific doctrines since the core theology is basically the same as the first two mentioned.
Getting even a tiny bit of consensus out of the individuals present on this specific issue is going to be nearly impossible.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

Amanda Jackson5 said:Nope, and besides, you already mentioned you didn't mind. We're talking about a guy who actually agrees with Goering’s logic that the deer over at Carinhall are perfectly happy being shot at because, in his view, they were basically born just to be trophies. (post #88)

Aha, caught that quote 🙂
Philosophically speaking? His argument actually holds water.
Look, I don't mind sizing people up. I sized you up, and since it doesn't seem to bother you, then we're good @Volver

Anyway, back to the point... you religious folks and your endless alien talk... just because I hold a certain view doesn't mean every other believer feels the same way. It's not my job to interpret everyone's faith for them. I don't get why you guys always go down that road—every person is an individual, plain and simple.

Am I related to Gering or what? Just need to know before I go any further

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S9 using Reddit

Look, I’m definitely not the "God-believer" type you’re looking for—mostly because it’d actually bum me out if we were all alone in this massive, endless universe without any other civilizations out there at different stages of development.
Btw, I used to be a total fanatic, following every single series religiously until they absolutely butchered the franchise. I still follow them, just not the newest stuff. The last ones I really dug were the ones with Captain Archer, T-Pola, and Ksind.
For now, anything we can't see, hear, touch, or verify through testing is fair game for a reasonable assumption. (Btw, according to Bridle, only about 5 to 6% of inventions published in scientific papers actually pass experimental tests under identical conditions with a success rate of up to 30%—if I remember that right). Same goes for God, the universe, aliens, etc. So, if you're asking me, I don't mind one bit. 🙂
You’re clearly the intellectual here, and I’m not. You probably have a degree or something; I don't. If we’re talking military hardware, you’re a rocket launcher, and I’m just carrying a handgun. So, I’m sticking to my handgun tactics until I can grab at least a mortar—assuming I don't get killed first. If I survive, I'll grab the mortar, pull up close enough to you, and then you’re gonna have a problem. 🙂

I'm not being offensive here—go ahead and come at me all you want 🙂

None of that matters. Honestly, all this pseudo-philosophical nonsense is just irritating—especially when it's 100 degrees out and I'm stuck in the shade dealing with it. Btw, my mind is totally open to the idea of alien civilizations and the existence of God, and the fact that both can coexist in one brain is something you’ll never wrap your head around. No offense, Amanda Jackson5 🙂

User using Tapatalk

Terry Martinez10 said:Given that's the case, I'm really not sure why I should even bother attempting a response when it's painfully obvious that I'm operating on a level far beneath her expectations....

Like...

I got stuck reading comment number 50 about hypothetical civilizations and honestly, I started wondering the exact same thing.

Thank God there are still some grounded people left in this world.

@Nea
Treaty or no treaty—this guy’s just fishing for likes at this point 👍🙂

I zeroed in on that specific part of your question and gave you my take. What I’m looking to change—and honestly, what I need to fix and get past—has absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife itself.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S9 using Reddit

Amanda Jackson5 said:First off, I don't engage in hate speech. And using the kind of language you just used to trample over someone's rights? That’s exactly what hate speech looks like. You started out stirring the pot just like George and Peterson, and then you tried to backtrack, much like they did. Look, I'm not under any illusions thinking that you actually changed your mind.

Second, I’m struggling to wrap my head around what "recognizing equality" for certain philosophies even means. In this country, freedom of speech is the rule of the land. But freedom of speech is a two-way street—everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but everyone else also has the right to talk back. Beyond that, I don't really get what the substance of a philosophy based on a "Christian worldview" would even be. If the content is theological, then we aren't talking about philosophy anymore. If it's philosophy, then it isn't religion. Honestly, I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as a formal "Christian worldview." Within Christianity, you have a bunch of different sects with all sorts of conflicting ideologies; in the States, you see that manifest as specific subsets of religious nationalism. I wouldn't go so far as to call that collection of superstitions and myths a "worldview," let alone elevate it to the status of philosophy.

Look, with all due respect, you can’t actually know what I think about this—you’re just guessing. My take isn't some black-and-white thing; that’s all I’m saying. Also—regardless of where I stand—you're tossing around the word "rights," but I’m not even sure those are actual legal rights under US law. If they are, fine, kudos to you. They're rights. But if they aren't, then they aren't. And even if they are, we’d need to figure out if they're conditional or absolute. That's just how it works from a legal standpoint, since we're talking about rights here.

As for your other point—it's either pure ignorance or you're just refusing to learn, because honestly, for someone as sharp and well-read as you are, it’s hard to believe you couldn't draw your own conclusion about what a "Christian worldview" actually entails. You've framed this in such a reductive, binary way. Faulkner would call it narrow-minded.

And that whole line about Catholic-nationalist ideology being the only one in our country? Just plain wrong. When it *was* dominant—and let's be clear, it was never the sole ideology—it happened during a specific historical moment with its own context. That era and context might still haunt a few people stuck in the past, but generally speaking? It's not the norm anymore. It's the exact opposite. But hey, I've got insider info, so maybe you just don't see the full picture like I do. 🙂

Amanda Jackson5 said:Look, I didn't call you a clerical-fascist snake; I just pointed out that you're the one peddling clerical-fascist nonsense by calling the legal right to abortion a "silent genocide." You’re the one who decided to escalate things with that heavy-handed rhetoric, so don't act surprised when you get hit back with the same energy. If you want to play that game, just know that's how it works.

I went ahead and edited my post so nobody feels targeted or insulted. Honestly, if memory serves—and I think it does—I phrased things pretty poorly and impulsively back then, but everything else is fair game for debate. Besides, the whole topic was stupid anyway; good riddance to it being deleted.
On another note, I’d love it if someone would just come out and say it once and for all: that any philosophy rooted in a Christian worldview is treated with the same level of intellectual respect as any other view here on this forum.
And just asking for clarity... does that "looking for trouble and finding it" thing work both ways?

ruggedraven36 said:Don't get hung up on the examples. There are plenty of them—but most people show up here to actually talk shop and weigh in on some philosophical deep dive. Sure, you’ll get some casual banter and even a few arguments now and then, but that's not why we're all here. To me, it feels like most of us just can't find anyone in our own neck of the woods who wants to debate philosophy. That's why this forum works. If someone's just looking for a playground, they can easily go find somewhere else better suited for that.

Spot on. They aren't exactly common, but when you find them, they're gold. I'm usually in a better spot during the summer because friends fly in from all over the country—people who actually get my vibe and want to sit down to trade perspectives or vent about whatever literature we've been chewing on. It's always a blast talking shop with them. In a crowd like that, you don't have to worry about someone—if I can put it this way—throwing insults at you just because you phrased something poorly or didn't finish a thought perfectly, unlike the cheap shots you see flying around here.

p.s. I looked over yesterday's debate since I couldn't jump in myself; nothing to add or take away. Stay sharp! Glad we have @Volver doing such a solid job keeping things running 👍

Sandra Murphy33 said:There are three identical responses here:

Amanda Jackson5's, ND-owned, and WW-owned

🙂

It just proves how much sense the answer actually makes. 🙂

@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

Jacob Cooper5 said:I’ve always had this weird fascination with people who actually bother to think—people who question everything. They have this way of just... slicing right through my logic, dissecting it so cleanly that I’m left standing there totally defenseless. And it isn't even about them trying to win an argument or dominate the room; they’re just analyzing the internal mechanics of my thought process—which, let's be honest, does have its own internal logic (pun fully intended here)...

It’s honestly exhausting when you run into those "shallow thinkers" who try to make up for their lack of depth by using fancy vocabulary and high-speed rhetoric. It’s all just a performance to protect the status quo, really. We end up wasting so much damn time on these pedantic little word games instead of actually getting into the meat of things—having a real, raw, intellectual clash that actually means something.

Looking at the second half of this description, I definitely see myself in it.

I'm just quoting someone else here—not my own brilliance, obviously—but it's how I see things..
Know thyself.
That’s the baseline if you actually want a life that isn't totally meaningless.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

You can spot a real leader by how they talk—straightforward, no fluff, just plain English.

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Steven Clark2 said:Haven't many philosophies that were brilliantly articulated also faced ridicule in their time? 😁

I am a bit late in responding to your thread. However, in my opinion, you shouldn't stop visiting this forum—whether you're using your phone, your laptop, or whatever device you have at hand. I truly believe you have something valuable to contribute, and it is a genuine pleasure to read. Your advice for those just beginning their journey into philosophy is honestly one of the most beautiful things I have encountered on this forum in about fifteen years. I must admit, I am usually quite stingy with such praise, but I believe I will remember that comment for a long time; I have revisited it and this entire thread several times now. That said, I must confess I am not entirely certain I have grasped its full depth. I am unsure if all philosophers, or even modern philosophy as a whole, move in a single direction, given the various schools of thought. Personally, I am most drawn to contemporary philosophy; the authors I read are living, breathing, and vital. I find myself hesitating over whether to dive into Gadamer; despite him living to the age of 101—essentially spanning the entire last century—he feels somewhat dated to me. 🙏 His passing was recently commemorated (March 13, 2002), following his birthday earlier this year (February 11, 1900). I wouldn't be this intrigued by him if it weren't for Heidegger, and ever since, Gadamer has been weighing heavily on my mind. 😁 I have one of his books in an English translation, but I am in deep doubt as to whether I should tackle it or move on to something more recent. 🙂 If you have any recommendations, please, fire away—I won't take offense. 🙂

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

hiddeneagle98 said:To me, this doesn't look like the annihilation of philosophy, but rather a moment where philosophy becomes empirical. It’s a moment where it gains the ability to discard bad philosophy based on a complete and verified insight into what a human being actually is. With this newfound freedom to alter the human condition, responsibility naturally follows, and as a result, ethics becomes more vital than ever before.

Yeah, yeah... maybe I went a little overboard with my wording in those first posts. My old brain is still fighting off the leftover effects of indoctrination on how we think—and how we talk about it, too 😁 (sometimes the right words just slip away)

Bottom line: philosophy is always rooted in empirical stuff that gets processed through thought. In that process, you inevitably end up tossing out parts of what was previously "thought"—if you can even call it that—because while someone was thinking it, it wasn't wrong, it was valid. Only later does it get labeled as wrong. Whether we dump it or try to rebrand it, that old stuff always leaves its mark on current thought, whether that impact is positive or negative

So, based on our understanding of humanity (using whatever knowledge was considered valid at the time), it always demands a level of responsibility and ethics that becomes absolutely critical. That was basically the underlying theme of everything I've been writing here. @medonaodmoru called me out on it—rightly so—noting that philosophy’s job is to deal with the truth, no matter how ugly, and bake that fact into the bigger picture. If they don't, philosophers just negate themselves and become irrelevant. My take? Philosophers have to deal with the intrinsic dignity of the human being. If they don't, they'll self-destruct just as surely as if they ignored reality. And I'm not talking about an "either/or" situation—it's both. We'll always circle back to the starting point: truth and the human being.