Okay, this idea can to me in the Bweezy Orical(sp?) thrend, when Deamon was explaining to me the God of the ancient greek philosophers. I think Red though Deamon was taking over Bweezy's spot and I have always been semi interested in philosophy (this is why I read Diolouges on my spare time) so I was thinking maybe starting a thrend to discuss philosophy. I will start off-


I just finished reading Ion (which is a discussion between Socrates and a reciter (how is really a poetry anyalist and goes around explaining Homer to people) named Ion) In this discussion Socrates expresses an idea that poetry and all forms of art (such as medicine, military, painting and song) are all formed from the artist inturrpatian(sp?) of God's message. He said that a divine message is given to the artist and the artist, trys to express God's message through their art.

A simular idea had occured to myself a few weeks ago, while pondering my religion (I grew up Roman Catholic, but I tend to disagree and question to much. I am not welcome back to my church), I came to the idea that good gives us philosophies and then sees what it is that we do with them, as if we are a toy set to him/her/nothing. So this would mean, God sent, Budda, Jesus, Moses, Noah, Mohammad, Gandhi, Aristotle, to give us ideas, and then let humanity form it's own opinion.

I have a trouble, with any religion claiming that what another human being says and does is wrong, because, God created that opinion, God created that action, therefore you are claiming God made a mistake, this filtering back into what Socrates was saying that God gave us the message in the art, but wiats for what the artist will do with it.

That's assuming that there is a God. Even if you were to believe in the Good or some like quantity (such as the Tao), it's a different step to ascribe it human-like emotions or desires. Buddhism has a non-being as at the centre of the Universe, so do certain Gnostic sects. Some Christian heretics, too.

Many philosophers, especially the Greeks, hold that many of us are in constant contact with God via our souls. Aristotle talked about our souls as being apparently the form of our body. That is to say, our soul is to our bodies what a sculpture is to clay. Clay is the material, the shape of the sculpture is the form. As we are human, our souls are able to reason, and through logic (the Greek generally had an sacred and mystical respect for math and logic, as can be seen in Pythagoras' cult) we are able to see aspects of God. Incidentally, Aristotle claimed that God should have no love for us, just as we have no love for ants. He is so far above us that we are beneath even His contempt. Aristotle's God is the eternal thinker, cold and calculated. Aristotle extends this reasoning and claims that a superior man should have no love for an inferior man. The inferior man should have love for the superior, though.

Spinoza, if I remember correctly, had a very similar conception to God, save that he tried to strike all human features of his God away: "those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated." For him, God is a different order of thing, not a being.

And the last part of what you said: Free will vs. Providence. If you were to suppose that the Christian conception of God is correct: Did God truly give us free will or not? How can an all-knowing and all-powerful being that created every aspect of us grant free will? He knows at out creation the entirety of our actions and thoughts during our brief lives, so if he wished us to be different, he could have made us or the environment different. So by creating us the way that he did, isn't God in essence tacitly approving every single one of our actions?

On a similar note, one tenet of Islamic faith is that Islamic, Christian and Jewish peoples all follow the same god. While certain leaders trying to stir up enmity for political enemies may ignore this, I find it strangely comforting. I don't tend to follow any sort of organized religion but this kind of thinking I can get behind.

See I beleive i already gave you my opinion on this

What ever that is worth lol.

Is it possible that God is not all knowing. For if he was he would be very bored would he not. I mean eons of knowing whats going to happen, man it would drive anyone insane, nothing new happens, this is why io feel humanity is God's toys, because why else would he have created us, if not for his amusment.

i remember as a child may mother reading her university biology text book to me, and it stated mankind only uses 10% of it's brain, now that is 16 year information, but if this is true, maybe God gives us the FREEWILL to free our minds. In what I am trying to say maybe God, gave us his intellegants and it is our job to unlock it.

Mankinds idea of philosophy has evolved since Aristotle and Plato and we no that some of their ideas are wrong, (e.g. earth is flat, earth is center of the earth, idea of compossion of materials (elemants, earth air fire and water)) but we have learned from that. Is it possible that Aristotle had a smaller access to his brain, then you or I? But then thorugh his discoveries in philosophies he unlocked, parts of his brain and with his writtings gave us the simular abilities.

If Aristotle feels that the soul is infact God, then this would just be a different perspective on what I had just read Socrates was saying, except in Aristotles veiw, God effects everyone not just the artist and interrpator.

Yes but if we look at what Jesus, said (as a philosopher not as the son of God) he said we are all brothers, we are all sisters under one father.

Now what I said eariler about God would be also cold and calculated because we are his toys. So in this case I would also agree with Aristotle.

this of coarse I disagree with becuase what is inferror. is the guy who builds a house inferror to the person who builds rockets? Who is to say who is inferrior, or does inferriority even exists. I would think the later is true but once again I can not pretend to be Aristotles intellectual equal.

For the record, this is a myth.

(See this article in the Sceptical Enquirer for a typical rebuttal. There are many more out there.)

Don't mind me, I was just being belligerent. Carry on...

:unsure: :lol: or :hide:...

Alright next on the agenda *looks through a list he comprised with elephant dung paper and eztray eficent pencils*

What is virtue?

My feels on virtue is this:

That virtue, is what the individual sees as th good.

e.g. To an economist, a virtue would be the ability to be cold and consist eficentcy over feelings, but to a libitarian they would say this was a vice on society and that the true virtue would be the idea of the strong supporting the weak.

Which is truely the virtue, well which ever one you beleive is. There is no definition of what is virtue, except what is good, and since nobody can kept a soild opinion on what is good then there is no definition on what is virtue.

Just a thought

This may not completely fit with the entire flow of the conversation, but stil on the topic of philosophy. I'd like to share with you a Buddhist simily that changed my perspective on religion in general. This is not to win an argument or propose that Buddha's teachings are better than Jesus, God, ect.


*************

The Simile of the Raft

"Using the simile of a raft, monks, I teach the Dhamma designed for crossing over and not for retaining. Listen and attend carefully to what I say."

"Yes, Venerable Sir," the monks replied. The Buddha continued:

"Monks, a man sets out on a journey and comes to a vast stretch of water. The near bank is beset with fears and dangers, the far bank is safe. But no boat goes to the further shore and there is no bridge. He thinks: 'Vast, indeed, is this stretch of water, the near bank is unsafe but the further one is without danger. I had better collect grass, leaves, branches and wood to make a raft and with its aid using my hands and feet, ferry myself across to the further shore.'

"Then, monks, that man having made a raft crosses over safely to the further shore striving with his hands and feet. Having crossed he thinks: 'This raft has been very useful, for with its aid I have reached the further bank safely. I had better carry it on my head or back and go wherever I want.' "What do you think, monks, if he does this is he acting rightly about the raft?" "No, indeed, Lord."

"Suppose that man who has crossed over to the further bank should think:

'This raft has been very useful, with its aid I have reached the further bank safely. I had better beach it, or let it float down the vast stretch of water and go wherever I want.' If he acts thus, monks, he would be acting rightly about the raft. Even so, monks, using the simile of a raft have I taught the Dhamma designed for crossing over, and not for retaining. You, monks, who understand the Dhamma taught by using the simile of the raft, have to give up good things (dhamma); how much more the evil things (a-dhamma)."


****************

I took out of this simile that the Bible, Dhamma , or any religious teachings you use only serves the purpose of reaching Heaven/ Nirvana. The water symbolises suffering. The boat is the Dhamma or Bible. And the shore obviously the end point, or Nirvana. Once you reach the banks, the boat has surved its purpose and must be let go.

It is wrong to use the Bible or Dhamma as a crutch. Even though the words maybe pure in intention, Clinging even to such high mental attainments as these should be given up. Need one speak of evil things?


PS sorry if spellng is bad