Recent comments in /f/philosophy

theronimous t1_j7rpyvy wrote

Reply to comment by kryori in 3 reasons not to be a Stoic (but try Nietzsche instead) by Apotheosical

|The god part is irrelevant

I don’t understand your point. The serenity prayer makes sense even if you remove the reference to ”God”. I consider it as a figure of speech, as if you are coming to the realization (on your own). An epiphany so to speak.

I highly recommend reading the Christian Bible’s book of Proverbs, even if you don’t believe in Christianity.

1

[deleted] t1_j7rflbb wrote

Reply to Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692

I’ve personally found her theory about never getting over the lost of a loved one to be overblown. In most cases. Time and God does heal.
But that’s an individual by indivisible basis.

Butler saying that gender is performative is kind of a scream; it’d be like me telling my doctor — “you’re not really a doctor, medicine is performative”. Of a prisoner. — you’re not really a prisoner — Incarceration is performative.

Finally if her theory of intersectionality means that Beyoncé lacks something I have because despite being fabulously wealthy Beyoncé also intersects with being black. — that’s a bunch of non-sense.

At the end of the day, in America as in many social democracies, you intersect by far most with your socio-Economic status —anything else you just brush by these days

−7

zazzologrendsyiyve t1_j7rci09 wrote

Reply to Carl Jung, and the realm of knowing beyond knowing by [deleted]

“Religion or spirituality thus becomes your truth rather than a reflection of the truth and the extent to which we can actually connect with its forms of truth leaves us with a kind of uncertainty we cannot overcome unless we give up the insistence of analytics, reasoning and empiricism as the only way to reality.”

This sentence sounds like a dogma on its own, in my opinion.

In reality it just depends on whether religion makes claims about subjects that can be verified with science. If that’s the case, then the scientific truth is in fact in direct contrast with the religious truth, and it cannot possibly be that they are both right at the same time.

An old example from religion: the earth is 6,000 years old. Nope! So in this case you are not free to “look for your own truths”. You either accept the facts or you are delusional.

When it comes to people like Jordan Peterson, I believe they cannot simply reply something like “I believe / I don’t believe in god” because it would be clear that they are delusional.

It’s a form of intellectual dishonesty and some of them (like JP) absolutely know that. For example when he’s asked whether he believes in god or not, he says something along the lines of “it would take 4 hours for me to explain what I believe”.

No it wouldn’t, unless you want to take the definition of god given by the Bible and change it to fit your agenda. The Bible is really clear about what god is, what he does and why he does it.

You either accept it or not. You cannot change the meaning of something that was written 2000 years ago. You are not 100% free to INTERPRET the scriptures while “forgetting” the context in which the scriptures were produced.

Those people 100% believed what they were writing, so they were either right or wrong. If you allow yourself to interpret the Bible in any possible way, then are you not allowing yourself to interpret the words of a omniscient being?

On the one hand “God did that” and on the other “…yes but I (a “stupid” human being, far from Being omniscient) can the change the meaning of it!”.

The question is: is there a limit to how much you can interpret and how much you should keep as is? It seems that the limits is being changed based on the needs of the culture, which is in fact intellectual dishonesty.

If the limit is not clear (and in JP it is not clear at all and it seems that anything is up from grabs) then you’ll just adapt the “interpretation” to what you already think and feel, which of course is just a sophisticated variant of confirmation bias.

Lots of smart words from smart people who desperately need to confirm their feelings, which is the opposite of intellectual honesty and integrity.

−7