Why a sanctuary?

Here is an absolute perspective. From the perspective of the absolute, everything else is an abstraction.

 

Truth and reality are relative terms. My existence does not parallel yours, therefore we live in different worlds. Experience is everything and truth is obscure.

Philosophy is not an accurate description of reality. It is only a description of what may be reality for some, and when taken seriously, it becomes religion. And what about that existential dilemma?

If Philosophy gave great value to society, Athens would still be the center of world knowledge.

Your knowledge of Existentialism seems to parallel that of a degreed person.

.

 

Reality is non local nor is it remote. Perspective represents a corridor of refraction, a play of reflected light. Your existence is identical to all existence, and your human experience consists of a series of sensations, some of which you call pleasant and some not so.

Philosophy is the love of truth or the spirit of scientific method.

Specifically because of philosophy we advance, the truth sets us free.

My knowledge is of myself. I have used my time to discover the answers to questions that concern me. It is coincidental that my concerns are existential.

 

My opinions are probably similar to yours, except that I have no desire to believe in anything unseen. But, unless I am first attacked, or see another being attacked, I prefer to state my opinion in a more benign manner and straight forward as my opinion and not as an ultimate truth, which does not exist in my mind. Delivery is everything. I have many friends whose beliefs are different from mine and we remain friends because we do not insult each other when discussing them.

By hit and run, I mean come in the middle of a debate, denigrate someone's reality and move on to another thread. That could probably been phrased in a different way, but that's just what came to mind at the time.

.

 

Sometimes effect exceeds purpose.

.

 

Ya, you have a more serious vibe going on than me but we share similar views. I tend to laugh and make jokes about myself, about others, and about life. It's just a habit that has helped me deal. I never mean any real harm, I don't get off on other people's pains and disappointments. But I do enjoy seeing people's reactions, and then contemplating their reasoning and the complexities of their thought that produce that reaction. So I will adjust my delivery if the person I am speaking seems truly offended by it.

Who knows, maybe my post would have been completely ignored if not for the farting in truth's mouth comment, which I still think is hilarious because it sounds disgusting. Sometimes getting people mildly offended is a good thing, you just have to know when to shut it down.

I've always enjoyed that quote from Nietzsche.

 

I have no doubt that there is an absolute reality, but our limited view of it is obscured, therefore we all create our own subjective reality to fill in the blanks.

I don't doubt this. But, since none of us can see the totality of the "big picture" of absolute reality Philosophy is conjecture based on individual subjective truths.

Maybe. The study of philosophy does teach a certain style of inquiry.

Since you can have no knowledge of other's realities or the totality of absolute truth, and your inquiries are into only what concerns you, the "big picture" still remains to be seen by you, as is the case with all of us.

All philosophical inquiry is for the purpose of satisfying one's individual curiosity. Other than providing structure for a some individuals it has no more or less social value than religion. One who lives his/her life based on a philosophical structure is no different from someone whose life is based on a religious structure. Both are based on unseen truths.

.

 

When I was young I liked Nietzsche, but over the years he became irrelevant as I began to see too many similarities in Philosophy and religion.

.

 

You don't think that anyone can benefit from considering the point of view of a number of philosophers?

 

We apply varying degrees of attention. We have periods of sleep and wakefulness. When we are asleep we dream, and it is reasonable that we do so. When we wake up we also have dream periods but we call them hopes and organizing, taking care of all those vague and fleeting concerns that flit across our dreaming minds. An objective picture does not emerge because we spend so much time in the subjective state. We say there is no objective reality because we cannot see it. It is simply because you do not look for it, we are too busy pursuing our idle schemes.

The picture gets bigger all the time but it remains the same. Reality is an inviolate constant. I agree, billions of years and counting. Reality is not unknown or unknowable, it is still becoming. We but waste time if we do not learn what is yet to be learned and you have no time at all if you insist nothing can be learned.

The only philosophical structure that I propose is persistent personal inquiry.
What I mean by my concerns being coincidentally existential, is my concerns are common. They are fully shared by all. There is good in the world for me and I must have it. Your good is equal to my good. Your irritation is equal to mine. As I serve my brother I serve myself.

 

Ya it's all pretty irrelevant.



Random quote:
Frylock: Do you, Svetlana... what does this say?
Carl: Look, just say Smith or Jones or somethin'. I mean, there's no way you can pronounce that, right?
Frylock: Svetlana Smith, take Carl...
Carl: Just say Smith again, it don't matter. None of this matters.

 

The key here is "a number of philosophers." The study of general philosophy can help one learn to think critically, but to live a life based on philosophy is no different than having a religion.

.

 

Life is inherently devoted.

 

I didn't say there is no objective reality. I've had too many car wrecks (collisions with objective reality), to not see that there is. A car is an object, yet each of us has our individual subjective idea of that object. The Earth is an object, yet each of us have our subjective ideas of it's creation, it's meaning, etc. Objective reality has no meaning beyond it's existence except for the subjective meaning that each of us assign to it. This is where human conflict resides, in subjective meaning. Everyone agrees that the Earth is here, how it got here and where it's going is where the contention lies.

I'm not insisting that nothing can be learned. My point is that given the exact same experience, you and I will likely learn something different.

Which, evidently, suits you, but not everyone. "Persistent personal inquiry" has lead you and I to different conclusions.

If all of this were true, we would not be debating these issues.

.

 

Persistent personal inquiry does not come to conclusion. You are using some other method.

 

Actually you relegated philosophy to the dung heap of irrelevance before discerning the difference between the embodied nature of philosophy, which is the love of truth or knowledge and philosophies which are theories about truth, knowledge and their attainment.

So what, If I loved you I wouldn't have to ask you what is wrong?
Because the truth is true, we will be discussing these issues as knowledge is, being shared.

 

That depends on what you mean by conclusion. If you mean "that's it, I now know everything," I agree. But, an inquiry of that magnitude is unattainable. My personal inquiries are of single questions, like, "what is desire," "why do I like something?" Conclusions are possible.

Even at that, I realized at one point that knowing some things is not really very important. My life has been enhanced by the search more than the answers. The trip is often more enjoyable than the destination.

I don't think I did. I said that I think it has little social value in and of itself, but placed it in the classification of religion, which provides much personal value for individuals, like yourself. All philosophy is theory, and, like religion, is faith based. Go to your local community college and take some courses in philosophy and you will find the same passionate arguments that you find between religionists. Each philosophy even comes with it's own language, like religions.

.

 

I was a Chef/owner/Operator, for many years. As familiar as I was with every minute aspect of that career, there was not one moment that I did not spend refining technique, searching for virtue. Virtue is a noble steed, you have to stay on top of it or you fall off.

There are no idle thoughts, questioning some things is irrelevant in light of known things.
We may comfortably throw out the random sample, check for consistency and on this basis exclude the patently false by definition.

Again if I may, We are devotional by nature. We always choose with a guide. That guide is our idea of good based on our model of what that good is. I am not talking about religions or philosophies. Our generic philosophy is I love my good.

 

I don't think I did that. In different posts I said philosophy has little relevance for society, but does have some value in teaching logical, critical thinking. A personal philosophy is what I equated with a religion, (not a bad thing). Pretty much, philosophy is the theory of truth. I say theory because even the great philosophers were unable to offer proof for their works.

I can work with this one. In 1982 I managed a restaurant/bar. It was sold in 1983 and I worked there again as a prep cook in 2005. I was a patron there from 1979 until 2007 when it closed and designed their web site and maintained it for many years. The 2 owners had completely different management styles, yet, both provided quality food, service and entertainment at reasonable prices. The point is, there is never just one way to do something.

Philosophy, religion, moral values, instincts, love, all provide virtue. When I'm in need, it matters not which one provides me with solace. A good person is a good person irregardless of his beliefs or how he arrived there. And, I think your next statement supports this contention:

I really don't think we are that far apart in our basic beliefs. Our differences may have more to do with semantics. I think.

 

Yes I have read several times why the sanctuary was first added to these forums and this is what Skip said about why Sanctuary was added:

Perhaps you can show me where it says that sanctuary was added to these forums because Evangelical Christians could not stop hounding others about Christ?