VonNoble

Wisdom Lovers United (or untied)

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 I agree - the actual existence of Buddha, or Plato are not critical to pinpoint.   The ideas carry forward.  In class they presented a related quote attributed to Socrates:.... philosophers give birth to "eternal children" (birthing ideas that live for generations.)  

 

There are times where I do see Jesus (if he existed) as a potential philosopher.   

 

My prediction for future assignments for this class will include a presentation of a proper statement from each of us

regarding our personal beliefs re: the existence of God/god.   I better get started on formulating one.   it is going to take me 

awhile. :blink:

 

It has been a long while since I needed to focus on that issue.    

Morality and a causal correlation to god/God do not seem to be relevant to me.   So I guess I better start working on 

how one phrases that properly (and of course - defends whatever stand one takes as part of a class exercise.) 

 

That will be another day. 

 

Thanks,

 

von

 

 

It's a joke I picked up along the way.

 

"When I get angry or upset with people; I stop and ask -- 'What would God do?'  Then I try to drown them."

 

Getting our morality from Scripture is not always a good thing.  Throughout Scripture -- God makes a miserable role model.  In addition, God's pronouncements have led to mayhem beyond cataloging.  

 

A final point, before I wader off.  We are speaking of an all knowing God who remembers the future.  What kind of sadistic fiend, would have the Jews, Christians and Muslims killing each other over the same Holy Land?  The All powerful and All Knowing couldn't have prevented this?  

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

As long as we are grappling with basic questions -- "What is true?" -- "What is real?" --  There is no reason to ignore the claims of Judaism.  Everything in the Hebrew Scriptures -- EVERYTHING -- including Genesis --  has an exact date on the Jewish calendar.  This is the year 5778.  That's how old the world is.  India and China have histories older than that.  Their records don't mention Noah's Flood.  It's almost as though the Great Flood never happened.

 

According to Islam, Mohammed ascended to the Heavens with the help of a flying horse.  Good luck with that.  After the first hundred miles, the air starts getting thin.  

 

Hmmm, I saw this and thought, I've heard that there were flood stories from all over the world. So I did a quick Google search and came up with this.

The story of the Great Flood plays a dramatic role in Chinese mythology, and its various versions present a number of examples of the flood myth motif around the world.


IndiaThe Matsya avatar comes to the rescue of ManuManu and Matsya: The legend first appears in Shatapatha Brahmana (700–300 BCE), and is further detailed in Matsya Purana (250–500 CE). Matsya (the incarnation of Lord Vishnu as a fish) forewarns Manu (a human) about an impending catastrophic flood and orders him to collect all the grains of the world in a boat; in some forms of the story, all living creatures are also to be preserved in the boat. When the flood destroys the world, Manu – in some versions accompanied by the seven great sages – survives by boarding the ark, which Matsya pulls to safety.Puluga, the creator god in the religion of the indigenous inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, sends a devastating flood to punish people who have forgotten his commands. Only four people survive this flood: two men and two women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VonNoble said:

I completely agree...I believe Buddha expressly did not intend to form a religion!

 

THAT, today had me wondering.... did Jesus?    The Christians will jump in with justifications for church...however- I remember there was more of a claim he was a revolutionary (which was his undoing so to speak).... thoughts on the intent of Jesus to start. Religion?

 

thx von

As far as I'm able to summarize, Jesus, if he was historical or not, did not intend to start a religion, but rather enfold the gentiles into a similar belief as the Hebrews. The Apostles made him the "church", whereas he only intended for there to be belief in his sacrifice upon their behalf and accept God.

He did say he was the son of God, but it has also been pointed out that God is within all of us, as we are His children, too. From this, I'd say Jesus had some eastern influence maybe in his thinking, perhaps some mysticism?

Can't help but feel in this view, He may have been kind of a philosopher, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VonNoble said:

I completely agree...I believe Buddha expressly did not intend to form a religion!

 

THAT, today had me wondering.... did Jesus?    The Christians will jump in with justifications for church...however- I remember there was more of a claim he was a revolutionary (which was his undoing so to speak).... thoughts on the intent of Jesus to start. Religion?

 

thx von

 

Taking the Gospel accounts at face value -- yes.  The Romans did regard Jesus as a revolutionary.  That is what got him -- literally -- nailed.  No humor intended.  Look at the sign they put over his head.  

 

And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.
 
The Romans were not big on theology.  Political trouble makers got nailed -- in the original sense of the word --  and quickly.  Rome knew the power of terror.  This is what Peter was afraid of, when he denied knowing Jesus.  There was a cross waiting for him, as co-conspirator against Roman rule.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 5:52 AM, VonNoble said:

Our first week in Philosophy class we studied Plato's Allegory of the Cave. 

It is a very quick read online for anyone who wants to preview it.   It can be pondered and dissected

a good long while (and was in class.)   I am not sure it was worth the effort. 

 

Prior to reading this story (prisoners chained in a cave have a limited point of view....and on it goes) 

...prior to reading it - it was hailed with great fanfare as a genius bit of literature.   The words life-changing

were used as part of the introduction.  I did NOT AT ALL find it to be life changing.   Nor did I find it to be 

inspiring or even a good read. 

 

I wonder if Plato would not have benefitted from adopting the style of Jesus.   Jesus was a good parable maker.   

Plato seems less effective by comparison.     

 

Any preference in  your view of Jesus over Plato?  

 

 I reserve the right to amend my views as this class progresses.....I am VERY new to this VERY large subject.  

These are first blush musings only.....

 

von

I have never read Plato's Allegory of the Cave but I have read several paraphrased versions. I had no trouble with my understanding of it. It reiterates that all we know of our world is due to our perceptions of it. If all we perceive are shadows, then our world is one of shadows. I like to refer to it from time to time in order to remind myself that all I know of my world is due to my own perceptions. What my brain tells me is true is often untrue. The brain does not deal with truth. The brain deals with survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In fairness, this does not let Buddhism off the hook.  A major claim of Buddhism is that Buddhism is a path to enlightenment.  Anybody can achieve enlightenment through Buddhist practice.  That is, anyone can become a Buddha.  After three thousand years of Buddhist practice -- where are all the Buddhas?  

 

Collectively -- there are parts of the world where Buddhism is the dominant philosophy.  Are these "enlightend societies"?  Not really.  They're not worse.  They're not better.  Only different.  

 

Buddha insisted that his ideas could be put to the test.  From what I can see, the results have been mixed.  

 

Your point is a good one.   Visiting a predominately Buddhist area - I was sort of disappointed that things were not as ideal as I had expected.   In discussing it with my guide - he quickly pointed out  - while true enough, I might want to consider a wider lens.   Compared to other areas in the region they were lightyears ahead in areas of equality, tolerance and non-violent solutions.    While he was wiling to make a concession to your point - his lens saw it as being incredibly better than it would have been if the area were not mostly Buddhist......

 

Still.  Your point is a good one.  

 

I agree  - Buddhists are not better, then again most I have met don't claim to be better as a group.   Nor do they try and convert

others that they MUST choose Buddhism.   They tend more to view are they better than yesterday....are they better this hour than last etc........(smaller bites in assessing their progress)......was I honest and fair today more than I was yesterday.    They don't try and make the leap to perfect (or enlightened) in one lifetime.   They accept a slower progression.   And I suspect enlightened folks tend to keep a VERY low profile - maybe....^_^

 

There are likely about the same number of stellar folks under all labels maybe.   (which then begs why humans keep investing billions and billions in churches, temples, mosques and the like) - - - if the net results is a needle that doesn't significantly advance. 

 

All good thoughts you raised.   Thank you. 

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

 

Your point is a good one.   Visiting a predominately Buddhist area - I was sort of disappointed that things were not as ideal as I had expected.   In discussing it with my guide - he quickly pointed out  - while true enough, I might want to consider a wider lens.   Compared to other areas in the region they were lightyears ahead in areas of equality, tolerance and non-violent solutions.    While he was wiling to make a concession to your point - his lens saw it as being incredibly better than it would have been if the area were not mostly Buddhist......

 

Still.  Your point is a good one.  

 

I agree  - Buddhists are not better, then again most I have met don't claim to be better as a group.   Nor do they try and convert

others that they MUST choose Buddhism.   They tend more to view are they better than yesterday....are they better this hour than last etc........(smaller bites in assessing their progress)......was I honest and fair today more than I was yesterday.    They don't try and make the leap to perfect (or enlightened) in one lifetime.   They accept a slower progression.   And I suspect enlightened folks tend to keep a VERY low profile - maybe....^_^

 

There are likely about the same number of stellar folks under all labels maybe.   (which then begs why humans keep investing billions and billions in churches, temples, mosques and the like) - - - if the net results is a needle that doesn't significantly advance. 

 

All good thoughts you raised.   Thank you. 

 

von

 

 

Thank you.  One more thought.  If somehow, all God belief were to vanish -- people would still be people.  The world would still be a mess.  It would be a different mess -- but still a mess.  The triumph of Atheism -- by itself -- would not save Humanity from itself.

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, micha_el said:

the ACLU would probably be johnny on the spot to put a stop to teaching philosophy in grade school lol

 

 

The teaching of philosophy, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

attempting to instill a "philosophy" that is disagreeable to the parents of a child would be problematic whether it violates any particular amendment or not. even if a class  would be broad based and encompass many different philosophical views there would always be someone that finds a problem with it and would try to sue in court to have it stopped. it certainly would be offensive and a shame if a child would end up being way more tolerant and open minded than the parent

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, micha_el said:

attempting to instill a "philosophy" that is disagreeable to the parents of a child would be problematic whether it violates any particular amendment or not. even if a class  would be broad based and encompass many different philosophical views there would always be someone that finds a problem with it and would try to sue in court to have it stopped. it certainly would be offensive and a shame if a child would end up being way more tolerant and open minded than the parent

 

 

Teaching a course about philosophy is not the same as "instilling" philosophy.  Neither is it the same as indoctrinating in religion.  If people don't want their children exposed to ideas -- then their children should never leave their home.  Or read a newspaper.  Or listen to radio news.  They should just stay home and be ignorant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teaching and instilling are subject and matters of opinion. and as opinions go I believe education on a wide range is of much benefit to people. I cant speak for other people but I myself would much appreciate if you directed your commentary toward the original post rather than at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, micha_el said:

attempting to instill a "philosophy" that is disagreeable to the parents of a child would be problematic whether it violates any particular amendment or not. even if a class  would be broad based and encompass many different philosophical views there would always be someone that finds a problem with it and would try to sue in court to have it stopped. 

The fact that many people believe the world is flat does not, in any way, indicate that someone can successfully sue a school for teaching astronomy. The fact that anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit is not something we should be held hostage by. 

Philosophy classes work by raising basic questions and then examining different ways people have gone about trying to answer those questions. When discussing Plato, the focus is not really on what Plato believed, so much as the process Plato used to develop and express his beliefs.

The (ideal) goal is to give students a set of tools they can use to better understand any problem- tools like logic and rhetoric that basically have universal applications, being equally useful to Christian and Satanist, doctor and farmer.

I took a very basic Fundamentals of Philosophy class in 5th grade (As part of what the North Carolina Public Schools were calling the Gifted and Talented Program) . All I remember from it is that we were taught about the way logical fallacies are used by advertisers to trick us. That proved to be valuable info, even as a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, micha_el said:

teaching and instilling are subject and matters of opinion. and as opinions go I believe education on a wide range is of much benefit to people. I cant speak for other people but I myself would much appreciate if you directed your commentary toward the original post rather than at me.

 

 

"the ACLU would probably be johnny on the spot to put a stop to teaching philosophy in grade school lol"

 

Those are your words I was responding to.  Do you want to post and be ignored?  On this board, we respond to each other.  You don't get to make the rules.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 1:07 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Thank you.  One more thought.  If somehow, all God belief were to vanish -- people would still be people.  The world would still be a mess.  It would be a different mess -- but still a mess.  The triumph of Atheism -- by itself -- would not save Humanity from itself.

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

What a thought. 

 

Human beings plural ....is humans being.

 

If only.....

 

thx for thought jog

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

What a thought. 

 

Human beings plural ....is humans being.

 

If only.....

 

thx for thought jog

 

von

 

I try to be reasonable.  I don't always succeed, but I try.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now