Answer the previous poster's question.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I don't know if the period where I sort of venerated constellations and I tried to develop some very rudimental ritualistic forms count, but there's that.

Next poster, how would you take a genderbent version of Proverbs 31:10-31?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Depends on what level you're reading the text at to begin with. If it's read literally or tropologically as an ode to someone's wife then it can probably be applied to a husband as well without losing much, but if it's read typologically or anagogically to refer to Israel or the Church or Sophia or the Shekhinah or something, then it might be more important that the central figure stay a woman.

Question: Does Teresa of Avila need to be read with her New Christian family background in mind, or can she be understood apart from that?

[PSOL]

Context is necessary for most things

Do you take the parables of Jesus as factual?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Factual in what sense? He's obviously not telling them as if they're true stories.

Question: Is dialectical materialism a religion?

[If my soul was made of stone]

Question: Is dialectical materialism a religion?

In the context of its elevation by the Eastern Bloc's reverence of ideology, arguably (Ceaușescu once compared applying the theory to cocaine use), but there it was fairly removed from its original state, in which I'd say it's no more or less religious than any philosophical principle.

Do sexuality and religion have any intersection in your view? Does religion have a place in restricting or promoting any form of sexuality? Do you believe that sexuality can be harnessed for magical or ritual purposes?

[afleitch]

Question: Is dialectical materialism a religion?

In the context of its elevation by the Eastern Bloc's reverence of ideology, arguably (Ceaușescu once compared applying the theory to cocaine use), but there it was fairly removed from its original state, in which I'd say it's no more or less religious than any philosophical principle.

Do sexuality and religion have any intersection in your view? Does religion have a place in restricting or promoting any form of sexuality? Do you believe that sexuality can be harnessed for magical or ritual purposes?

I think promoting healthy sexual relationships is fine. But declaring married man-woman units as the only vessel to express it, or assuming that there's something 'moral' about that vessel regardless of the nature of the relationship within it is inherently unhealthy.

Any religion that disposes of or dissaproves of non heteronormative relationships based in the descriptor without caring about the value of the relationship is, and I mean this sincerely, abusive.

Favourite Scottish philosopher?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I think promoting healthy sexual relationships is fine. But declaring married man-woman units as the only vessel to express it, or assuming that there's something 'moral' about that vessel regardless of the nature of the relationship within it is inherently unhealthy.

Any religion that disposes of or dissaproves of non heteronormative relationships based in the descriptor without caring about the value of the relationship is, and I mean this sincerely, abusive.

Favourite Scottish philosopher?

Agreed, unclear, agreed, disagreed.

Does Duns Scotus count?

[this is just because Statilius the Epicurean/Thersites didn't ask a question]

Next poster, favourite Italian philosopher?

[Brother Jonathan]

I would have to say Machiavelli has always interested me a great deal, as long as we are including political philosophers as well.

Next poster: Favorite English Philosopher?

[John Dule]

Everyone is probably sick of me talking about the obvious answer, so I'll say J.S. Mill.

Next poster: What do you think of the Aristotelian "doctrine of the mean"? Is it just cringe centrism or is it a decent way to live one's life?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Nichomachean Ethics is one of my favourite books and I find Aristotle's doctrine of the mean intuitively plausible. If it has a problem, I don't think it's "cringe centrism" so much as that it seems to me the poles of each extreme are defined arbitrarily in relation to one another, and the virtues themselves are culturally contingent. But there will always be a tension in our ethics between rigorous scepticism and 'common sense' grounding.

[wimp]

If everyone goes to heaven, is there any point in living a good life?

[°Leprechaun]

If everyone goes to heaven, is there any point in living a good life?

Yes, I would define living a good life as being an ethical person.
If you don't live a good life you are not living the kind of life that is
beneficial to you or to others. This should be a no brainer.
A religious person is not necessarily a good person and religious people
often use their religion as an excuse to do bad things.
Holy wars are never a good thing.
One definitely doesn't need religion to be a good person.
As for heaven, people who are not good are making hell for themselves.

….

Question: Is it a bad thing to believe anything without empirical evidence?
(For example, there is no empirical evidence to believe in magic or miracles if you define them as something that contradicts the laws of science)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Of course not. I could say it is actually a bad thing to never believe anything unless it has empirical evidence.

Next poster:
What are your thoughts on the fact that Europe is dominated linguistically and socially by Indo-European roots but religiously by Semitic roots and culturally by some 'amalgamation' of both? Do you think modern European civilization could have happened without this union?

[If my soul was made of stone]

Next poster:
What are your thoughts on the fact that Europe is dominated linguistically and socially by Indo-European roots but religiously by Semitic roots and culturally by some 'amalgamation' of both? Do you think modern European civilization could have happened without this union?

I think that union is very essential to the construction of European society ever since the classical era, first with the massive influence of the Phoenicians and their descendants (e.g. Carthage) on commerce, language, and religion (note how the Mesopotamian Inanna/Ishtar became the Canaanite Astarte/Ashtoreth, as mentioned in the Old Testament, and then Aphrodite and Venus), and then the second wave of the obvious massive influence of Judeo-Christian thought beginning in late antiquity. There were holdouts, of course, as in Scandinavia (cue obnoxious far-right pagan revivalist movements), but eventually they became subsumed into the strange marriage as well. For better and for worse, I doubt that present or past societies would have been as strong in their identities and cosmopolitan were they not built on this inherent syncretism.

Next poster: What is your view of Discordianism? Is it a genuine philosophical and spiritual path, an extended sh*tpost, or somewhere in between, or is that question even worth asking (fnord)?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Discordianism was obviously founded as a parody religion, but my understanding is that it has evolved into something more 'genuine' with (very small numbers of) committed adherents. So basically my answer is "somewhere in between".

Next poster:
Can a serious conservative political philosophy which rejects Edmund Burke exist and work in contemporary times?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Depends on what we mean by "work". If you mean become a major political force capable of shaping policy, probably not. Liberalism, broadly understood, has become axiomatic in modern western political thought, to the extent that even conservatives must be a stripe of liberal. A non-Burkean conservatism is likely condemned to being an irrelevant fringe movement.

Next poster:
     What would a world where Berkeleyan idealism became one of the predominant currents of philosophical thought look like?

[°Leprechaun]

    Depends on what we mean by "work". If you mean become a major political force capable of shaping policy, probably not. Liberalism, broadly understood, has become axiomatic in modern western political thought, to the extent that even conservatives must be a stripe of liberal. A non-Burkean conservatism is likely condemned to being an irrelevant fringe movement.

Next poster:
     What would a world where Berkeleyan idealism became one of the predominant currents of philosophical thought look like?

I certainly think that idealism has had some influence on human culture.
One could argue that if it is in conflict with empiricism in any way that it could be a potential danger.

I have to admit I am quite unfamiliar with Berkeley,
but I have his treatise, Principles of Human Knowledge*, because
it is included in the Great Books, the original series.

I got this from my mother who died in 2019.

I have read the preface where he warns of rejecting something until it is properly understood. I am reading the introduction where he discusses abstract thought.
One question that arises is whether animals are capable of abstract thought. It would seem that they are not. If so, it is a fundamental ability  where human and animals differ.
(anyway this is certainly an incomplete answer and I hope to read the entire treatise as soon as I have enough time and can offer an opinion based on more information)

Question: Did Methuselah live 969 years and if not how does one discern what in the Bible is not to be taken literally?
(a follow up question is can life expectancy be increased far beyond what it is now, in the news, because partly due to Covid, life expectancy is going down)

*I had said "Understanding", a faux pas, the word in the title is "Knowledge" not "Understanding"

As I was reading the above mentioned book, it occurred to me that his argument answered the following question.. (and the link does mention him)…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

His answer is that only our perception of reality is real, which is, by definition, idealism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I take the view that the pre-Abrahamic portions of Genesis are practically pure myth. If the lifespans of the antediluvian patriarchs have any basis in reality, they probably originally referred to lunar months rather than solar years.

Besides 42, are there any other Answers to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything, or does the question only have one solution?

[°Leprechaun]

I take the view that the pre-Abrahamic portions of Genesis are practically pure myth. If the lifespans of the antediluvian patriarchs have any basis in reality, they probably originally referred to lunar months rather than solar years.

Besides 42, are there any other Answers to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything, or does the question only have one solution?

I would not say that there is only one solution, but if you consider the etymology of "Philosophy" which is "love of wisdom" you are on the right track. If a person seeks wisdom she (or he) may eventually answer the ultimate question, for her (or him) self if not for others.
Patience, of course, is essential to this task.

Q: What is your opinion of metaphysics? (or to be more precise does it interest you and even more importantly does it have any practical value?).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As the man above said:

It seems to me, that the only objects of the abstract science or of demonstration are quantity and number, and that all attempts to extend this more perfect species of knowledge beyond these bounds are mere sophistry and illusion. As the component parts of quantity and number are entirely similar, their relations become intricate and involved; and nothing can be more curious, as well as useful, than to trace, by a variety of mediums, their equality or inequality, through their different appearances. But as all other ideas are clearly distinct and different from each other, we can never advance farther, by our utmost scrutiny, than to observe this diversity, and, by an obvious reflection, pronounce one thing not to be another. Or if there be any difficulty in these decisions, it proceeds entirely from the undeterminate meaning of words, which is corrected by juster definitions. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the squares of the other two sides, cannot be known, let the terms be ever so exactly defined, without a train of reasoning and enquiry. But to convince us of this proposition, that where there is no property, there can be no injustice, it is only necessary to define the terms, and explain injustice to be a violation of property. This proposition is, indeed, nothing but a more imperfect definition. It is the same case with all those pretended syllogistical reasonings, which may be found in every other branch of learning, except the sciences of quantity and number; and these may safely, I think, be pronounced the only proper objects of knowledge and demonstration.

All other enquiries of men regard only matter of fact and existence; and these are evidently incapable of demonstration. Whatever is may not be. No negation of a fact can involve a contradiction. The non-existence of any being, without exception, is as clear and distinct an idea as its existence. The proposition, which affirms it not to be, however false, is no less conceivable and intelligible, than that which affirms it to be. The case is different with the sciences, properly so called. Every proposition, which is not true, is there confused and unintelligible. That the cube root of 64 is equal to the half of 10, is a false proposition, and can never be distinctly conceived. But that Caesar, or the angel Gabriel, or any being never existed, may be a false proposition, but still is perfectly conceivable, and implies no contradiction.

The existence, therefore, of any being can only be proved by arguments from its cause or its effect; and these arguments are founded entirely on experience. If we reason a priori, anything may appear able to produce anything. The falling of a pebble may, for aught we know, extinguish the sun; or the wish of a man control the planets in their orbits. It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another34. Such is the foundation of moral reasoning, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human action and behaviour.

Moral reasonings are either concerning particular or general facts. All deliberations in life regard the former; as also all disquisitions in history, chronology, geography, and astronomy.

The sciences, which treat of general facts, are politics, natural philosophy, physic, chemistry, &c. where the qualities, causes and effects of a whole species of objects are enquired into.

Divinity or Theology, as it proves the existence of a Deity, and the immortality of souls, is composed partly of reasonings concerning particular, partly concerning general facts. It has a foundation in reason, so far as it is supported by experience. But its best and most solid foundation is faith and divine revelation.

Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of the understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived. Or if we reason concerning it, and endeavour to fix its standard, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general tastes of mankind, or some such fact, which may be the object of reasoning and enquiry.

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

No question, no answer.

If you believe in some sort of an afterlife, do pet cats and dogs go to it to be alongside humans?

[°Leprechaun]

No question, no answer.

If you believe in some sort of an afterlife, do pet cats and dogs go to it to be alongside humans?

SKIP>>>

I can't answer this question, because I really have no idea.
Does anyone want to take a shot at it?
(This was a very interesting thread while it lasted, so I decided to bump)
SKIP>>>

[Never Made it to Graceland]

No question, no answer.

If you believe in some sort of an afterlife, do pet cats and dogs go to it to be alongside humans?

SKIP>>>

I can't answer this question, because I really have no idea.
Does anyone want to take a shot at it?
(This was a very interesting thread while it lasted, so I decided to bump)
SKIP>>>

Thank you. I'm still curious what people think.

[satsuma]

I don't believe in an afterlife but when I did, I wasn't sure if it would have animals. It seemed heterodox, but it's more fun that way. If God could make Heaven however He liked, maybe He'd like a vast natural habitat for all the creatures who ever lived.

Q: Do people have free will? Is it consistent with an atheistic material universe or a universe designed by an omnipotent God?