Posts by swiftcobra15

ironbadger31 said:So, you're telling me you mostly live by instinct rather than logic? That reason is just some little thing that snuck under your radar, and you're essentially just a slightly more evolved primate?

Well, that’s certainly a modest way to put it!😁

That was a pretty cheap shot. Where on earth do you think this "instinct" comes from?
Humans don't have instincts.
Are you perhaps leaning too hard into scientific reductionism, thinking everything can be boiled down to just logic versus instinct? 😕

Give it another shot—try to make it a better argument this time!😉

Ashley Nguyen5 said:1. Practicing Yoga is a matter of personal choice, just like deciding whether or not you think the people at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are idiots.

2. I don't see any reason why Yoga should be funded by taxpayer money...
If you love it, go ahead! (And pay for it yourself)

It’s pretty clear there are a lot of malicious people in there with very limited intellectual capacity. If they aren't capable (or willing) to distinguish
HATHA Yoga from Hinduism, then they truly deserve to be called an idiot, a malicious person, or both.😉

2. Well, if religious education—which is essentially brainwashing!—is being funded by the federal budget, then there is even more reason to fund the best known system of physical exercise for maintaining and improving health.🙂

swiftcobra15 said:🙂 🙏 🙏 🙏

Magic isn't just an option; it’s a necessity. If you aren't practicing it, you're simply becoming a target for someone else's dark intentions. 😉

If you aren't actively shaping your own reality, you're nothing more than a pawn in someone else's spell.😉

Ryan Wilson2 said:... why magicians always have their sleeves rolled up.

It’s actually quite simple: a magician is constantly working
—building their own reality.
If you aren't busy constructing your own world, someone else will do it for you. You end up living by their rules, which means you aren't truly free; you're just a servant (check out the "Serfs" thread)😉

I’ve always found this definition most compelling: Truth is whatever helps you grow.

To me, my truth doesn't necessarily have to be yours, even if our paths happen to cross. It’s a rare occurrence, though, and I believe we need to practice patience and show some grace toward the truths others hold dear.
In a sense, there is only one truth: that many truths exist.😉

For the second year running, I’ve been trying—unsuccessfully—to kickstart a meaningful dialogue about art. On the old message board, a moderator actually moved my thread over to the "General Fun" section, which really tells you everything you need to know about how people here view fine art.

So, let’s try bringing in some heavy hitters. Even though I wouldn't call myself an expert or even a devoted follower of Hegel, you just can't ignore him when this topic comes up:

Hegel argues that art is actually the lowest manifestation of the absolute spirit. To him, it's simply that spirit taking on a sensory, visible form. Religion expresses itself through preconceptions and emotions, while philosophy uses pure concepts—which he considers the most fitting vessel for the absolute spirit.

Within the realm of art itself, there's a hierarchy: it starts with the visual arts at the bottom and climbs up toward poetry and music as the highest forms. If my memory serves me right,
Plato held a similar view. I personally find his perspective quite compelling. 😁

But before Hegel, we had Kant, and here is how W. Jerusalem describes his work:
Kant taught us that in an aesthetic judgment, "we do not relate a preconception to the object through reason, but rather to the subject and the feeling of pleasure or displeasure." He suggests that an aesthetic judgment isn't a cognitive one; we aren't identifying specific traits of the object, but rather using the object as a way for the subject to express the feelings it stirs up.
According to Kant, the sense of beauty is distinct from mere pleasure—which is what a pleasant object triggers—and different from the joy that follows goodness.😉

Dragonfly said:Why did things go that way? If you ask me, it’s because they completely mixed up the ingredients from the start.

Instead of trying to play God ourselves, let’s just step aside and let Him do His work—maybe then we can finally start acting like actual human beings.

😉 Hey, look at that—it's wild. 😁 Native Americans understood this long ago. If only we were actually ready to learn from them.😉

. 🙂 . 😉 . 🙂 CREATION - a Sioux Story The Creator gathered All of Creation and Said

CREATION - a Sioux Story The Creator gathered All of Creation and Said, "I want to hide something from the humans until they are ready for it. It is the realization that they create their own reality."
The eagle declared, "Give IT to me, i will taka IT to The moon."
The Creator Said, "No. One day they will go there and find it."
The salmon remarked, "I will bury it on the bottom of the ocean."
I disagree. They’ll make their way there as well.
The bison said, "I will bury on the Great Plains."
The Creator Said, "They will cut into the skin of The Earth and find IT even There."
Grandmother Mole, who lives in the breast of Mother Earth and possesses spiritual sight instead of physical eyes, once shared this:
"Just put it right inside of them."

And The Creator Said, "It is done."

For those who don't speak English:

CREATION - a Sioux Story The Creator gathered All of Creation and Said: "I want to hide something from humanity until they are truly ready for it." That is...
It’s a profound realization when you finally understand that we actually have the power to shape our own reality.

The eagle says: Give IT to me and i will taka IT to The moon.

The Creator said: No! One day they will arrive there and find it.

Salmon says: I’m going to bury it at the bottom of the ocean.

No! They’re going to head right there too.

swiftcobra15 says: I will bury on The Great Plains.

The Creator Said: They will cut into The skin of The Earth and find IT even There.

Grandmother Mole, who lives in the breast of Mother Earth and lacks physical eyes because she sees through spiritual ones, says:
Put it inside the heart.

The Creator responded: It is done! 😉

Pandora said:1. It doesn't matter.
2. That’s just an absurd truth.
3. Which man... which religion... which God?

Honestly, any deity from any faith works... as long as they aren't being exclusive. 😉 (I really can't stand that whole "exclusivity" thing.)

The fact that people use the concept of God in philosophy—even if it feels a bit misplaced—shouldn't cause such a massive uproar. It’s just how things are; most people use the term while implying God knows what else...

though we all know that...

naming things actually stands in opposition to the truth. 😉

Here is a pretty basic reason why I wouldn't allow the term "God" into a philosophical discussion:😁:
It’s a religious term that carries a heavy baggage of nasty connotations, which in philosophy only serves to create total confusion.

Specifically on these forums, two of the loudest advocates for "God" are IL (who seems to have a deep hatred for Jews and makes sure to put that in his signature, even though most Christians would find that quite awkward) and Meta12, who also harbors intense animosity toward Muslims, not to mention others.
So, you have two supposed "Christians" representing a "God" of hatred, and there's certainly no room for that in philosophy—and I suspect not in Christianity either.

In my last post, I forgot to address that famous question: Is God a person?

On a purely philosophical level, there isn't even a dilemma:

1. A person is defined by a specific self-awareness.
2. Self-awareness is the awareness of a separate existence
- one that is distinct from the Whole.
3. The Whole cannot be separate from itself.

Therefore, it cannot be a person, because it is much more than a person; it encompasses all persons and all non-persons alike.

This means the claim "God is a person" actually implies that this entity is merely a god (someone who might be called, say, Yahweh)—a being separated from the Whole. Consequently, it could never be the Absolute (the One, the All) nor possess its attributes.😉

stormywolf2 said:Buddhism is just an illusion of the human spirit!

AGY, you've missed the mark yet again. This thread isn't actually about Buddhism (it's yours, after all!); I only brought it up as an example. I could have just as easily used Hinduism, Taoism, or any other faith to make my point.
The author doesn't even bother to define what religion is before jumping to the conclusion that it "speaks more of God" than philosophy does. That kind of leap is completely arbitrary and frankly unacceptable in serious philosophical discourse—though it seems you're quite fond of it, given how you tend to argue.
The gentleman's conclusions are totally off base because his logic is riddled with holes. We can certainly debate those flaws here, but let's save the discussion about Buddhism for a different thread. 😉

Rachel Bishop said:Joseph M. Bochenski – Introduction to Philosophical Thought: The Absolute

...In this final reflection of our series, we arrive at the problem of the Absolute. This is how philosophers have traditionally referred to the Infinite... because for a philosopher, God... is never positioned at the starting line the way He is for a believer.

1. The contentious question isn't, I repeat, whether God exists, but rather how we ought to think about Him.
It goes without saying that the question of God's existence is legitimate...

2. Between the nonsense of anthropomorphism—which turns God into just another creature—and the no less absurd nonsense of God being absolutely unknowable...

3. Of course, religion tells us more about God than philosophy does. From this, they argue, it doesn't follow that the object of philosophical study regarding God would ever be in contradiction with the God of religion. Such a point cannot be proven. Anything we can say philosophically about God will also be acknowledged by a religious person.

You really put a lot of work into this, but you might have been better off finding a more neutral author. This Joe (surely he isn't Jesus's stepdad?😕 ) immediately postulates God right at the start and then tries to "prove" Him, which makes him incredibly similar to our friend AGY.
Since there are several massive holes in his argument (or perhaps in your transcription), the conclusion just doesn't hold water.

I'll stick to these three points:

1. The real debate, of course, is how we should conceptualize and name Him. If we use the word "God," we aren't even playing in the field of philosophy (as an intellectual pursuit) anymore; we've stepped into theology, dogma, and other ecclesiastical beauties.😁
So: The Absolute, The One, The All, The Totality, The Infinite—whatever else fits a rigorous intellectual inquiry is fine.
But "God"? Not in this context. "God" is a religious term and has no place in pure philosophy.

2. Why would the absolute (rational) unknowability of God be considered absurd?
That’s simply the truth! We can only truly know the Whole (the Absolute, the One, the ALL) by merging with it—that is, by losing our individual personality and separation.

3. Religion "says" things differently, it doesn't necessarily say "more." Besides, which religion are we talking about? It’s never defined, and it always (in that classic, sneaky way preachers love to operate 😁 ) implies that it means Christianity, the "most perfect" and essentially only true religion. The author suffers from a pathological Western-centric bias toward Christianity and doesn't even attempt to seem impartial.
For example, what does Buddhism "say" about God?😕
As for "will also be acknowledged by a religious person"... 😕 Which person? Which religion? What kind of philosophical training?

This is a meaningless claim—just the rambling of someone who has given up on actual reasoning.😉

Rachel Bishop said:What?

I honestly don't know... maybe I've been spending a little too much time immersed in Spinoza lately...😉

Please, I beg you! Let's not drag spiritualism into actual Philosophy.😁
Let Spinoza rest in peace. He’s certainly earned it.

To present Spinoza to certain self-proclaimed "philosophers" is truly like casting pearls before swine.
It seems some "philosophers" have never even heard of monism, constantly trying to sneak in more insidious forms of dualism.
Agy keeps insisting on explaining everything through the lens of Catholic theology, but the reality is quite simple:
If we allow for the idea that "God is both immanent and transcendent," we could prove just about anything, because such a claim is as logically hollow as saying something is simultaneously black and white.😉

Sly said:Hmm... Native Americans were resisting civilization?

Well, I have nothing but respect for them for doing just that! It’s truly a tragedy they didn't succeed.
They weren't fighting "civilization" as an idea, but rather its most violent manifestation: colonialism, which meant the systematic eradication of indigenous peoples and the seizure of their land.
The Native tribes managed their territory with near-perfect efficiency. From what I've read, their way of life was 100% ecologically sustainable.

The USA was built first on genocide (with nearly 90% of the indigenous population wiped out), then on slavery, and today it continues through neocolonialism—exploiting the rest of the world—and ecocide. It feels like a vicious cycle that just keeps spinning. 😉

Porto said:"Dance me to the end of love..."

Cohen knows exactly what he’s talking about. 🙂

👍 👍 👍

granitewalker21 said:...so many of us aren't actually present in our own bodies. We're just living inside our heads...

But isn't the head (arguably) the most vital part of the body anyway?!?😕

wiredbear2 said:Technology.

I’ve always felt uneasy about the cyberpunk future depicted in films like Blade Runner. I worry that if our only driving force becomes a relentless race for technological supremacy, we might end up losing much more than we gain.

Let’s talk about getting our definitions straight.😁
Everything we create is essentially an application of technology. Even when someone was crafting their very first spearhead, they were utilizing a specific technological process.

Nowadays, people usually equate that term with sophisticated, modern technology—which, in turn, becomes synonymous with the needs of the arts.

Here’s a genuine question for the group: Is a smartphone actually a necessity in our lives, or have we just been conditioned to believe it is? 😉

Paul Campbell3 said:Well, once I finally cleared my schedule, I got to work planting my two modest little friends. ...

For the most part, the garden is actually doing great. My basil is going to be overflowing soon, so I’ll be handing out free seedlings to anyone interested.
The broccoli is holding up well too. The sage is thriving, while the rest of the plants are just shyly poking their heads out of the soil.

🙂 I really loved reading this; it actually made me realize how much we need a dedicated sub-forum for
MY GARDEN.
After all, gardeners focus on the dirt, and witches focus on the magic.😉

wearyowl29 said:1. Money is a necessity because, in today’s world, living without it is virtually impossible.

2. However, it seems less desirable when an individual seeks spirituality on their own, outside the influence of organized religion.

3. It appears that poverty itself attracts spirituality, whereas spirituality cannot coexist with material wealth.
Those who have fully dedicated themselves to spirituality—aiming to help others in some way—must still find a means to sustain themselves.

4. Is experiencing personal lack alone enough to fuel spiritual growth and serve as a prerequisite for designing one's life?

5. Why is there this assumption that those pursuing spirituality must be poor?

1. Of course it’s possible, though certainly not in the way a "typical" member of modern society would expect. That distinction matters.

2. And what connection could organized religions—especially the Church—possibly have with true spirituality? 😕
I actually do have an answer to that question:

Organized religion (the church) acts as a graveyard, or perhaps even a landfill, for spirituality.

3. What defines material prosperity (wealth) versus poverty?
I would argue that prosperity is simply having what you need.
And you can achieve that with very little money.
I honestly feel wealthier than several acquaintances of mine who possess three or four times my net worth.
I’m not saying I lack everything; I just mean that what I *do* lack is something money simply cannot buy.

4. Poverty (or scarcity) is a state of consciousness.
The poor person isn't the one who has nothing, but rather the one who feels they are constantly lacking something.
A person with very little can be far richer than someone with abundance who remains perpetually unsatisfied.

5. To be "poor" means to be unburdened by material possessions.
Every object we own ends up capturing us and weighing us down. The more things a person accumulates, the less freedom they truly have.
In our modern capitalist system, scarcity—specifically the creation of new, artificial needs—is systematically manufactured to drive profit. People are trapped in a relentless cycle, a kind of perpetual motion machine, that we really need to escape if we want to live in true freedom. 😉

Well, just like the warden said, it’s truly wonderful to see such a massive turnout, but our guiding principle remains:
quality over quantity—small is beautiful!

Thanks for the warm welcome, and a huge thanks to Taylor Alvarez6—I owe you one (though heaven knows what kind of interest I'd be paying if I stayed in your debt!) 😘 😘 😘

Philosophy isn't a rabbit; it won't run off on us, and above all, let's try to stay civil. 😉

I’ve been reading this thread from the start, and I have to say, you all gave me a good laugh. Honestly, there isn't this much nonsense even on the comment sections of major US news sites like CNN.

First off, just so everyone knows which camp 😁 I belong to: I haven't eaten meat in about thirty years. I'm not a vegetarian, let alone a vegan.

However, once I stopped eating meat, I made a point of studying human nutrition thoroughly, and I think I actually learned a thing or two along the way.
Originally, humans (Homo sapiens) were essentially omnivores. This specifically means that in pre-civilization times, our diet consisted of about 70–80% plant-based foods, while the rest came from animals—things like insects, larvae, shellfish, crustaceans, fish, birds, and mammals, just to name the big ones. I mention this so the skeptics don't immediately assume we were living solely on spiders.
Even today, so-called "primitive" groups still eat this way, unless they live in extreme environments, such as the Inuit or certain Samoyed communities.

With the rise of the modern food industry—which is driven primarily by industrial factory farming and mass meat processing—there has been a massive surge in the consumption of unnaturally produced meat. Consequently, we are seeing a spike in many modern diseases that our ancestors barely knew existed.

Just a few generations ago, our ancestors might have had meat once a week, or perhaps a few more times a year. They were also much more physically active, and for the most part, they were healthy. A crucial difference compared to today is that the meat they did consume was naturally raised, so it couldn't harm them the way today's products do.
Meat was often a staple on the tables of the wealthy, which created the misconception that meat is the ultimate food. Interestingly, even "experts" fell for this bias; I remember being taught in school that we needed to consume huge amounts of animal protein every single day. Today, official scientific guidelines have actually halved those recommendations, yet some people still insist that a significant portion of protein must come from animal sources. To me, that seems like utter nonsense when you consider the millions of people worldwide who don't consume animal products at all.

Our body's proteins are synthesized from essential amino acids, all of which we can easily obtain from plant-based foods. When we consume animal proteins, we are essentially making digestion more complicated, because those proteins first have to be broken down into essential amino acids before our bodies can synthesize our own proteins.

😉 It feels like I've gone on a bit too long here, so if there's interest, I'll continue this another time.🙂

Veli Balog: It would make more sense if it didn't exist. I mean, if there’s a chicken, there has to be a mother hen or at least an egg to start with.😉

You're right, though things are getting increasingly confusing.
Maybe entropy is to blame?😕 😉 😁