Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
In a world were one person's religion is another person's fantasy, and one person's fantasy is another person's reality, the only sane person is the honest observer.
A view point.
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
^^ A discourse about the nature of true knowledge that has been going on since at least the 5th century B.C.
Aristotle would maintain that observation of the natural world, observation with our sensory perception is the path to true knowledge.
Plato maintained that true knowledge was found through contemplation of the transcendent, that knowledge was not to be found in observation because our senses are a filter on reality.
John Locke would maintain that experience and empiricism is the correct trajectory to knowledge.
Descartes would assert that truth is innate and attainable through rationalism, reason, and contemplation. Because our senses can deceive us.
I myself find a lot of value in Tolstoy's take on things.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And yet, Buddha's path to enlightenment was through observation and contemplation to reach the honesty within one's self in relation to nature, the Universe (and perhaps a diety?)
In a world where there is no religion or moral leadership, you have societal decline and despotic leaders who murder their own citizens.
Morality is not inherent; it is learned.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And since I advocated neither as you suggest, your statement has no relevance.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I never stated anything was inherent.. again, your statement is irrelevant.
You seem to imply that one does not need religion.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Define honest observer.
Per Merriam-Webster
honesty a: adherence to the facts : SINCERITY
doubted the honesty of the witness
b: fairness and straightforwardness of conduct
calling for honesty in politics
observer a: a representative sent to observe but not participate officially in an activity (such as a meeting or war)
b: an expert analyst and commentator in a particular field
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
your interpretation....re-read and reflect, contemplate. I point to conflicting attitudes. Think it through.
Again, your word; what is an "honest observer"? Who decides what is honest?
So you just like bloviating unintelligible semantics in an attempt to look like a fool. Got it.
I think it is exceedingly difficult to make direct comparisons between the nature of reality and knowledge in the western tradition, and the nature of reality in the eastern traditions. I do not think Siddhartha Gautama, aka the Buddha, believed in a God or deity in any conventional sense. I would not presume to speak intelligently on Buddhism, except that Siddhartha Gautama certainly considered self-reflection and self-enlightenment to be a path to knowledge and the transcendent. In that way, he was nothing like the tradition of western knowledge epitomized by Aristotle, Locke, and those natural philosophers who placed great weight on sensory perception, experience, and physical observation.
Define honest observer.
Like so many lefties on this forum, he'll somehow squeeze in the claim that he's a prime example of one.
Is morality inherent? Or learned?
Or claim he should be the "decider" of what is an "honest observer". The loon probably fancies himself as being above it all and the perfection of what is an "honest observer".
That's how lefties work. They claim what they believe is how everyone else should view it.
Micawber is a prime example. He claims to be more fit physically and intellectually that others on the forum yet when asked to prove his specific claims, he uses the "because I said so" argument then gets his panties in a wad when people don't agree.
You should know by now that I only use my time here to read and interact with sentient higher life forms.
Wrong; you waste your time here lying and wallowing in your echo chamber of buffoonery. Yay you!
