Selection, Round 2, comments...

Amanda Jackson5 said:Personally, I’d argue he was actually looking for a god who serves as the absolute and solitary truth.

And wouldn't you know it, he’d be sitting right there in the front pew at church, too.

gentlerider7 said:And wouldn't you know it, he’d be sitting right there in the front pew at church, too.

They're always front and center when it comes to fighting for the working class, charging ahead without a single fear in their hearts.

steelridge58 said:It lines up perfectly in terms of meaning.

No, you're missing the fundamental distinction here—true alignment between a concept and reality doesn't just dump all the truth onto the concept while dumping all the falsehood onto reality. The emphasis is on the *correspondence* itself. In the other quote, the point being driven home is that "only" Bog is true, and everything else is true "only" insofar as it reflects that truth. The correspondence is secondary there.

The truth is the absolute truth. There’s really no other way to put it.

ruggedraven36 said:You can't just be tolerant of everyone—it’s impossible. How are you supposed to show tolerance to people who spend their lives preaching death, misery, and slavery?

I'm with you there—there are certain people, certain ideologies, and even specific phenomena that we just can't tolerate... instead, we have to take a stand. In many cases, being "tolerant" of such things is really just a way of siding with them (and choosing the wrong side, no less).

But, because of those specific outliers—that small subset of unacceptable things—we shouldn't go changing the fundamental definition of what tolerance actually means. At its core, the whole point of tolerance is harmonization, coexistence, and creating the necessary conditions for mutual understanding...

Hey planinar, what’s your take on LGBTQ folks? Are you cool with them?

Amanda Jackson5 said:Yeah, sure, let's call it an anal interpretation (check out post #111)

Yes, I caught that. I can only offer one observation—though I couldn't tell you where that particular quote originated—which is, "A heavy-handed word kills us all."

Well, let’s not go "killing" the dialogue just yet...

Amanda Jackson5 said:Hey planinar, what’s your take on LGBTQ folks? Are you cool with them?

Yes.

In fact—there’s a certain sentiment out there along the lines of, "Who am I to judge?"... which, if you think about it, can easily be rephrased as, "Who am I to even bother with tolerance."

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Yes.

In fact—there’s a certain sentiment out there along the lines of, "Who am I to judge?"... which, if you think about it, can easily be rephrased as, "Who am I to even bother with tolerance."

That’s actually a pretty good way to look at it.

implosive said:Truth is truth... right up until it hits you like a ton of bricks.

Or how about this: truth isn't truth—until it finally kicks your ass.

ruggedraven36 said:@Twitter

Look, I just can't get behind your answer—or any answers like it, really. Truth isn't "truth" if it can't be grasped by a self-aware being, and let's face it, humans are self-aware. So, who else would truth even be for? Beyond that, truth has to be communicable. That’s why truth is inherently both beautiful and worthwhile.

Haha... you’ve actually managed to make me laugh. Thanks.
I suspect we aren't even discussing agreement or disagreement here. Rather, we are simply sharing various modes of thought. Fortunately,
truth cannot be defined or characterized by any human concept or attribute.
...But "beautiful and wonderful" in relation to what?
What if it is, in fact, "unimaginably beautiful and wonderful in relation to nothingness"?
The notion that a human being, as an individual, is some sort of superior intellectual entity on this planet does not grant them the capacity to perceive the absolute truth. That is merely a self-reinforcing infatuation born from a tendency toward egocentrism. And there is nothing personal involved here.

On the contrary: isn't it evident how much childish bickering is occurring here? In this instance, it stems from a trivial provocation regarding the reality of another person's existence—particularly those whose convictions are deemed exceptionally mature or profoundly personal (and yes, I am referring to myself!) 🙂. It is incredible how many judgments are passed without acknowledgment, simply because it is labeled "your" Reality. This is perfectly understandable to that incomprehensible force which serves as the foundation for all understanding.
And yet, there is this constant poking and prodding over a slippery word like "Bogey," acting as a deceptive distraction to prevent anyone from turning toward a more conscious study of their own cognitive systems—the very systems that construct the vast spectrum of belief and the intensity of opinion, which functions as a force that continuously shapes one's own perceived reality.

gentlerider7 said:Whenever you run into mentions of "the Absolute" in texts like this, you don't strictly *have* to link it to God, but honestly, why wouldn't you? It’s totally doable. Now, I'm not saying there's some direct mathematical equation where Absolute = God, but let's be real—there's definitely a connection there.
Bob did a much better job of breaking down what someone might mean by "Hegel under God," though he wasn't the only one trying, and look, that doesn't mean his take is perfect or without its own messy issues.

Exactly, the connection is possible. But honestly, tossing "the absolute" into philosophical discourse is just lazy. Personally, I’d rather skip the absolute entirely and just call it "blah blah." We can't actually say anything meaningful about its attributes or relationships. In fact, we can't say anything at all, other than implying that since the world is full of stuff, "blah blah" probably exists too. We just postulate it and call it a day. Is that philosophy? No. It's a joke. Postulating an absolute is nothing more than a cheap gimmick.

George Wood2 said:Haha... you’ve actually managed to make me laugh. Thanks.
I suspect we aren't even discussing agreement or disagreement here. Rather, we are simply sharing various modes of thought. Fortunately,
truth cannot be defined or characterized by any human concept or attribute.
...But "beautiful and wonderful" in relation to what?
What if it is, in fact, "unimaginably beautiful and wonderful in relation to nothingness"?
The notion that a human being, as an individual, is some sort of superior intellectual entity on this planet does not grant them the capacity to perceive the absolute truth. That is merely a self-reinforcing infatuation born from a tendency toward egocentrism. And there is nothing personal involved here.

On the contrary: isn't it evident how much childish bickering is occurring here? In this instance, it stems from a trivial provocation regarding the reality of another person's existence—particularly those whose convictions are deemed exceptionally mature or profoundly personal (and yes, I am referring to myself!) 🙂. It is incredible how many judgments are passed without acknowledgment, simply because it is labeled "your" Reality. This is perfectly understandable to that incomprehensible force which serves as the foundation for all understanding.
And yet, there is this constant poking and prodding over a slippery word like "Bogey," acting as a deceptive distraction to prevent anyone from turning toward a more conscious study of their own cognitive systems—the very systems that construct the vast spectrum of belief and the intensity of opinion, which functions as a force that continuously shapes one's own perceived reality.

So what's your plan then? How would you describe it? Using non-human terms?

ruggedraven36 said:So what's your plan then? How would you describe it? Using non-human terms?

Just another guy who lost his cool and thinks he’s presenting the world with total objectivity, completely stripped of any trace of subjectivity.😉 😁

ruggedraven36 said:So what's your plan then? How would you describe it? Using non-human terms?

Logically, there is no way. If that were the case, it would blatantly indicate a disproportionate relationship between one thing and everything else, rather than just itself.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Just another guy who lost his cool and thinks he’s presenting the world with total objectivity, completely stripped of any trace of subjectivity.😉 😁

😁 however, your observation remains objective, precisely because it lacks subjective contamination or psychological motivation.

George Wood2 said:Logically, there is no way. If that were the case, it would blatantly indicate a disproportionate relationship between one thing and everything else, rather than just itself.

I'll give you that—what you're saying here is totally illogical.

ruggedraven36 said:I'll give you that—what you're saying here is totally illogical.

🙂 Frankly, I have no idea what I am even writing anymore. I am simply amusing myself. And you? What is your purpose here?

George Wood2 said:🙂 Frankly, I have no idea what I am even writing anymore. I am simply amusing myself. And you? What is your purpose here?

Posting on Quincy is serious business for me—and honestly, for most of us hanging out here.

ruggedraven36 said:Posting on Quincy is serious business for me—and honestly, for most of us hanging out here.

Yes, perfectly clear. Consider this example: someone is writing a deeply earnest piece on a separate thread—let’s say, an analysis of urban gardening—when suddenly, someone from an entirely different topic begins condescendingly lecturing them on how "strange" their focus is. 🙂Do you Shatner, figuratively speaking?
Such interactions ought to facilitate relaxed, constructive communication rather than unnecessary conflict, especially when we are attempting to engage in mature, philosophical debate. Divergent viewpoints should not be an issue, regardless of their philosophical nature. It shouldn't be taken personally, nor should it be treated as something sensitive.

It would be quite fascinating to start a thread investigating whether the majority of philosophers are truly self-actualized, or if they are like certain spiritualists who fail to realize they are merely being driven by their own inflated spiritual egos.