Religious Typology Quiz

Doc Dutch said:
Agreed on moral equality, but socialism doesn’t work in a society with limited resources and above the tribal/village level….meaning above a level where citizens can easily participate on politics such as a town hall.
Click to expand...

I don't think Roseau was right about everything. Obviously , the sentient person should consider multiple perspectives. I think John Locke was probably right that the chance to own property was a key part of freedom's formulation
 
NovoJank said:
I honestly don't think you have a definition of Freedom. You have never provided one. And if you look at the dictionary (all dictionaries) you will see that absence of constraints is pretty much the primary definition.

What does the WORD mean to you? Not the philosophical implications, but the WORD ITSELF. What does it mean? It has to have a meaning in order of you to talk about it. What is its meaning?
Click to expand...
Cypress doesn't realize he's in Plato's Cave.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think Roseau was right about everything. Obvious, the sentient person should consider multiple perspectives. I think John Locke was probably right that the chance to own property was a key part of freedom's formulation
Click to expand...
Re John Locke, there seems to be a human desire to control one’s environment. This often means property even if not directly owned. An example would be a Native American tribe’s hunting grounds. If another tribe started using the hunting grounds, they’d be over-hunted and both tribes would go hungry. The situation would often be resolved with violent conflict.
 
NovoJank said:
I honestly don't think you have a definition of Freedom. You have never provided one. And if you look at the dictionary (all dictionaries) you will see that absence of constraints is pretty much the primary definition.

What does the WORD mean to you? Not the philosophical implications, but the WORD ITSELF. What does it mean? It has to have a meaning in order of you to talk about it. What is its meaning?
Click to expand...

The dictionary also defines quantum mechanics, but that is totally indequate for an proper working knowledge of what it really is.

I already told you, I think the nature of human freedom is an open question which has been debated for centuries by the best minds of humanity. I'm still thinking about it.
 
Doc Dutch said:
A lesson you have clearly not taken to heart.
Click to expand...

I am trying. I'm trying to be more cognizant of your feelings and I'm focusing on the GOOD stuff in the Bible. I also thought that would please Cypress as well. Just to show that I don't view religion as 100% bad. It has done some good. It has done bad, but also good. As just about anything in human affairs.
 
Cypress said:
The dictionary also defines quantum mechanics, but that is totally indequate for an proper working knowledge of what it really is.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You have to have agreed upon terms before you can discuss the concept. Even if it is a "placeholder" term.

I already told you, I think the nature of human freedom is an open question which has been debated for centuries by the best minds of humanity. I'm still thinking about it.
Click to expand...

It's a meaningless question if you don't even know what the words mean at the beginning. You may as well be asking "What does a glorvlincula taste like?"
 
Cypress said:
The dictionary also defines quantum mechanics, but that is totally indequate for an proper working knowledge of what it really is.
Click to expand...

I think I see where you are coming from. You are conflating the definition of the word with the implications of the concept.

Freedom, per se, just IS the lack of constraint. The philosophical implications are obviously what is getting you going.. Those are two VERY different things.

So the question isn't so much "what is freedom?" but rather: "Given access to freedom, what is the best application of my freedom to act?"

That's the real question, IMHO.
 
NovoJank said:
Incorrect. You have to have agreed upon terms before you can discuss the concept. Even if it is a "placeholder" term.



It's a meaningless question if you don't even know what the words mean at the beginning. You may as well be asking "What does a glorvlincula taste like?"
Click to expand...

There's not a snowball's chance in hell you can read the dictionary definition of quantum mechanics and conme away with a proper understanding of what it really is.

If you are looking to the dictionary as the source of ultimate knowledge, you are severely limiting yourself

You can either accept that the nature of freedom and liberation has been an open question debated by humanity's best minds for centuries (fact), or you can deny it (choice)
 
Cypress said:
There's not a snowball's chance in hell you can read the dictionary definition of quantum mechanics and conme away with a proper understanding of what it really is.

If you are looking to the dictionary as the source of ultimate knowledge, you are severely limiting yourself

You can either accept that the nature of freedom and liberation has been an open question debated by humanity's best minds for centuries (fact), or you can deny it (choice)
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I keep accidentally trying to have a conversation. My bad.
 
NovoJank said:
Sorry, but I keep accidentally trying to have a conversation. My bad.
Click to expand...

You're the one who fixated on the dictionary.

The reason encylopedias, text books, and universities were established is because nobody thought you could have a proper depth and scope of knowledge by reading dictionary definitions
 
You keep asking me the same question I have already answered

NovoJank said:
I am genuinely interested in what your actual definition of "Freedom" is.

(I understand you may not be amenable to actually answering my question since I sense I am still in the "dog house" over my comments on faith. Hopefully we can move beyond that as I would actually love to know what the definition of "freedom" is per your philosophy).

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Philosophers and theologians have been debating the nature of freedom for centuries, so I don't have brilliant answers of my own. I don't think the absence of restraint on action is an adequate definition.
But I Iike FDR's formulation of the four freedoms, and the formulations of freedom by The Buddha, Jesus, Utilitarianism, and German Romantics, aka freedom from the slavery of ignorance and sin, and freedom to create and participate something larger than oneself.
 
Cypress said:
You're the one who fixated on the dictionary.
Click to expand...

You DO understand that when we discuss the "dictionary" as a source for knowledge it isn't just EXCLUSIVELY dictionaries. It could be any form of technical physical communication of a concept. Just want to make sure you aren't being overly literal.

The reason encylopedias, text books, and universities were established is because nobody thought you could have a proper depth and scope of knowledge by reading dictionary definitions
Click to expand...

Wow. You ARE hyper literal. Sorry, no I was speaking more generally. I assumed you'd actually had philosophical discussions with people before. My bad. I didn't realize how literally you are taking everything.

I'll try to be more explicit going forward.
 
NovoJank said:
You DO understand that when we discuss the "dictionary" as a source for knowledge it isn't just EXCLUSIVELY dictionaries. It could be any form of technical physical communication of a concept. Just want to make sure you aren't being overly literal.



Wow. You ARE hyper literal. Sorry, no I was speaking more generally. I assumed you'd actually had philosophical discussions with people before. My bad. I didn't realize how literally you are taking everything.

I'll try to be more explicit going forward.
Click to expand...

We don't have to agree. If you are comfortable with a very skeletal, economical dictionary-level definition of freedom, that's fine.
 
Cypress said:
There's not a snowball's chance in hell you can read the dictionary definition of quantum mechanics and conme away with a proper understanding of what it really is.

If you are looking to the dictionary as the source of ultimate knowledge, you are severely limiting yourself

You can either accept that the nature of freedom and liberation has been an open question debated by humanity's best minds for centuries (fact), or you can deny it (choice)
Click to expand...
No one can define quantum mechanics. It places a fixed camera in the universe whereas relativity's camera goes with the flow. Physics cannot combine the two. There's no such thing as quantum gravity. It's a scam to keep funding physics.
 
Cypress said:
We don't have to agree. If you are comfortable with a very skeletal, economical dictionary-level definition of freedom, that's fine.
Click to expand...

Let's go with your Quantum Mechanics example. Indeed one can learn the "definition" of QM and it can be done with little to no real "philosophical" implications. There are countless people (called chemists) who use it every single day. They key issue around QM is the implication of some of the features of QM.

Yes QM is weird as anything. And it has a lot of really weird implications for "reality" as we know it. But it is also possible to just use it as is. It works even when you ignore the philosophical implications.

That's what I meant by being able to read the definition in a "dictionary" yet not touch the philosophical.

The same is true of "Freedom". First you must define what the word itself means. ALL the things you've listed that are important to the philosophers are predicated on a simple definition of what the WORD itself means but are concerned with the IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT FREEDOM OFFERS AND HOW IT SHOULD BE USED. NOT so much what the "Definition of the word 'freedom' is."

Does that make any sense?
 
NovoJank said:
Let's go with your Quantum Mechanics example. Indeed one can learn the "definition" of QM and it can be done with little to no real "philosophical" implications. There are countless people (called chemists) who use it every single day. They key issue around QM is the implication of some of the features of QM.

Yes QM is weird as anything. And it has a lot of really weird implications for "reality" as we know it. But it is also possible to just use it as is. It works even when you ignore the philosophical implications.

That's what I meant by being able to read the definition in a "dictionary" yet not touch the philosophical.

The same is true of "Freedom". First you must define what the word itself means. ALL the things you've listed that are important to the philosophers are predicated on a simple definition of what the WORD itself means but are concerned with the IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT FREEDOM OFFERS AND HOW IT SHOULD BE USED. NOT so much what the "Definition of the word 'freedom' is."

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with having definitions in a dictionary.

The word 'justice' is defined in the dictionary. But Plato wrote a whole dialectic about the meaning of justice, and people are still talking about it 2,500 years later.

Yes, I agree Dictionaries give pithy little rules of thumb about words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top