"God is dead"

evince said:
4/20/21

Join date


Oh that reminds me to go do something

Catch you on the over side guys

It’s been fun


Let’s keep this vein of threads agoin

Tootles
Click to expand...

Thanks for contributing to elevated discourse.

Surprisingly, jpp is mostly famous for bigotry, gossip, and subpar trolling.

You are probably the only person in the history of this forum who was willing to talk Solzhenitsyn and Nietzsche to me.

Keep up the good work, professor!


Thank you to other sober-minded contributors as well
 
Cypress said:
Thanks for contributing to elevated discourse.

Surprisingly, jpp is mostly famous for bigotry, gossip, and subpar trolling.

You are probably the only person in the history of this forum who was willing to talk Solzhenitsyn and Nietzsche to me.

Keep up the good work, professor!


Thank you to other sober-minded contributors as well
Click to expand...
I'm willing, but I haven't formed enough of an opinion on Nietzsche to contribute. Again, I see a lot of spirituality.
 
goat said:
I'm willing, but I haven't formed enough of an opinion on Nietzsche to contribute. Again, I see a lot of spirituality.
Click to expand...

Anyone on JPP who takes a genuine interest in philosophy, science, history is already distinguishing themselves. JPP tends to attract racists, gossipers, nincompoops, and juvenile trolls in the same way that pig shit attracts flies.
 
Cypress said:
Anyone on JPP who takes a genuine interest in philosophy, science, history is already distinguishing themselves. JPP tends to attract racists, gossipers, nincompoops, and juvenile trolls in the same way that pig shit attracts flies.
Click to expand...
Most of my friends and family are very religious and don't see philosophy or psychology as a science. They may be right but both helped me learn a lot about myself and how to survive in a world that demands conformity. I can see gray but a lot of it is cowardly cop-outs. It takes a lot of courage to go after Kant's unobtainable morality. That's what attracted me to Nietzsche.
 
goat said:
Most of my friends and family are very religious and don't see philosophy or psychology as a science. They may be right but both helped me learn a lot about myself and how to survive in a world that demands conformity. I can see gray but a lot of it is cowardly cop-outs. It takes a lot of courage to go after Kant's unobtainable morality. That's what attacked me to Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

Yet you never read Kant or Nietzsche.
 
goat said:
Most of my friends and family are very religious and don't see philosophy or psychology as a science. They may be right but both helped me learn a lot about myself and how to survive in a world that demands conformity. I can see gray but a lot of it is cowardly cop-outs. It takes a lot of courage to go after Kant's unobtainable morality. That's what attacked me to Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

Some interesting thoughts but maybe not the way you might think.

If God created the entire Universe, then God also created all of the physics of the Universe. Studying the Universe is to learn more about God's creation. It should be considered divine work. The best method to study anything, to learn about it, is the Scientific Method. Why do you think they are against learning more about God's Creation?

Claiming the world demands conformity is just one view point. IMO, if there's only one exit in a burning theater, it's not conformity when most head for that sole exit.

Meh. All people are mortal. None are gods. If someone wants to put Nietzsche, Kant or anyone else on a pedestal, then they can do it without me. OTOH, if they want to discuss his viewpoints, I'm all in.
 
Cypress said:
Anyone on JPP who takes a genuine interest in philosophy, science, history is already distinguishing themselves. JPP tends to attract racists, gossipers, nincompoops, and juvenile trolls in the same way that pig shit attracts flies.
Click to expand...

Which explains why we're all here. :)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Some interesting thoughts but maybe not the way you might think.

If God created the entire Universe, then God also created all of the physics of the Universe. Studying the Universe is to learn more about God's creation. It should be considered divine work. The best method to study anything, to learn about it, is the Scientific Method. Why do you think they are against learning more about God's Creation?

Claiming the world demands conformity is just one view point. IMO, if there's only one exit in a burning theater, it's not conformity when most head for that sole exit.

Meh. All people are mortal. None are gods. If someone wants to put Nietzsche, Kant or anyone else on a pedestal, then they can do it without me. OTOH, if they want to discuss his viewpoints, I'm all in.
Click to expand...
Science shouldn't have a viewpoint. It should make predictions and do experiments that others can falsify or duplicate.
 
goat said:
Science shouldn't have a viewpoint. It should make predictions and do experiments that others can falsify or duplicate.
Click to expand...

Science is a method. A tool. Religion should be a tool to spiritual enlightenment, but some become wrapped in the dogma and never progress. For them, religion is the end-all, not the beginning of their spiritual awakening.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Science is a method. A tool. Religion should be a tool to spiritual enlightenment, but some become wrapped in the dogma and never progress. For them, religion is the end-all, not the beginning of their spiritual awakening.
Click to expand...
Precognition is both metaphysical and scientific, so I'm looking for philosophers and psychologists who can prove their metaphysics with science.
 
goat said:
Most of my friends and family are very religious and don't see philosophy or psychology as a science. They may be right but both helped me learn a lot about myself and how to survive in a world that demands conformity. I can see gray but a lot of it is cowardly cop-outs. It takes a lot of courage to go after Kant's unobtainable morality. That's what attracted me to Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

I can't say I see a direct connection between Kant and Nietzsche. I was under the impression Nietzsche's most direct influence was Schopenhauer, but I also have a lot to learn about Nietzsche.

I have reached the point where I see philosophy and science as actually complimentary, especially in the big picture scientific disciplines like cosmology and abiogenesis.

Philosophy and science were not even considered separate disciplines until the 19th century.

My favorite current scientist is Sean Carrol, who has dual degrees in philosophy and theoretical physics - he is a philosophically-thinking scientist. As was Albert Einstein for that matter.

Scientists are not trained in formal logic. Philosophers are. Philosophers can help scientists understand what counts as a good explanation, and with their training in ontology and epistemology, philosophers are more directly concerned with finding the limits of knowlege and with how good our purported knowlege actually is. They are good at helping scientists refine the explanatory power of their theories.

For the most part, scientists are interested in fitting the data to theories. If the data can be fit, and experiments can be replicated, they view their job as essentially being done. That approach may, or may not be an accurate reflection of an underlying truth about objective reality.
 
Cypress said:
I can't say I see a direct connection between Kant and Nietzsche. I was under the impression Nietzsche's most direct influence was Schopenhauer, but I also have a lot to learn about Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

A big influence on Nietzsche is Plato. He spends a lot of time bashing platonism.
 
Cypress said:
I can't say I see a direct connection between Kant and Nietzsche. I was under the impression Nietzsche's most direct influence was Schopenhauer, but I also have a lot to learn about Nietzsche.

I have reached the point where I see philosophy and science as actually complimentary, especially in the big picture scientific disciplines like cosmology and abiogenesis.

Philosophy and science were not even considered separate disciplines until the 19th century.

My favorite current scientist is Sean Carrol, who has dual degrees in philosophy and theoretical physics - he is a philosophically-thinking scientist. As was Albert Einstein for that matter.

Scientists are not trained in formal logic. Philosophers are. Philosophers can help scientists understand what counts as a good explanation, and with their training in ontology and epistemology, philosophers are more directly concerned with finding the limits of knowlege and with how good our purported knowlege actually is. They are good at helping scientists refine the explanatory power of their theories.

For the most part, scientists are interested in fitting the data to theories. If the data can be fit, and experiments can be replicated, they view their job as essentially being done. That approach may, or may not be an accurate reflection of an underlying truth about objective reality.
Click to expand...
That's a great way to explain it, Cypress.

I'm old enough to remember when trolls made huge contributions to the net. The guys building the sites were sanctimonious pricks while the guys crashing them were funny and clever. The hackers forced the coders to up their game. We don't see that anymore. There's no merit in our soulless world. It's way too difficult to find virtue in the real world but it's easy to find it here on the net.
 
goat said:
Precognition is both metaphysical and scientific, so I'm looking for philosophers and psychologists who can prove their metaphysics with science.
Click to expand...

Like Tachyons and quantum particles? Do you agree that it's possible for the spiritual and the physical to meet on the quantum level? Some other level?

Which psychologists are into metaphysics? I can see a mixing in people like Kant and Nietzsche, but psychology and philosophy are separate fields.
 
goat said:
It's way too difficult to find virtue in the real world but it's easy to find it here on the net.
Click to expand...

I think that the commercial sites hawking their products might add some informational value, as do the search engines.

Other than that, the internet has seriously damaged our culture. Too many people think it means something when anybody can publish anything and most of it means nothing.
Ultimately, humanity may not survive the demise of print media.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I think that the commercial sites hawking their products might add some informational value, as do the search engines.

Other than that, the internet has seriously damaged our culture. Too many people think it means something when anybody can publish anything and most of it means nothing.
Ultimately, humanity may not survive the demise of print media.
Click to expand...
It's all about the numbers with a little chemistry. My first day here I couldn't figure out how to post an image so APL quickly stepped up to help me out. I would've been left high and dry in the real world.

Most people in the real world cancel me once they hear my view of the world, while I can find people on the net who agree with me and don't think I'm radical or offensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top