zodiac
replying on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy
10 Oct 2005, 5:31 AM
'Built' implies builder. 'Made' implies maker. No difference if there's purpose or not.
If you're going to argue with anything, argue with that. But I wouldn't recommend it.
Yes, but I haven't claimed to define philosophy or philsophers (not on this poem, at least.) I said 'A philosopher says X, a religious says Y', only.
You can argue I've said "A person who says 'I believe X' is a philsopher", but even that's not much of a leg to stand on.
And for that, it works. A philosopher does say, I believe X. So does a religious sometime. But a religious also says, I believe in a philosophy (and, NEW ADDENDUM) a philosopher doesn't.
I retract my first addendum and all your argument from the beginning is moot.
Why are so absurd as to say that I think evolution is intelligent. I simply said that it might have made us that way. Not on purpose, because it has no purpose. But it might have done it anyway. It's the same thing as saying it might have occurred by chance to anyone but you.
I thought this poem was going to be about how a pentigram is enigmatic. I see you've kept clear of that. And everything else enigmatic, apparently.
I laughed and and sympathized. Bar talk is almost spiritual at times, almost like church.
Yes, it does. And the way you say it does, too.
For the last time, evolution didn't build us. Evolution didn't have us in mind when it started. Evolution is not a sentient being or a process capable of predicting itself the way, say, scientists sometimes predict it. Scientists did not build us. Scientists did not create evolution. Scientists have had no control over evolution to date, and have very little now. Speaking of any process by which humans are "built" (excluding the process of God or gods creating the earth) is about equivalent to saying, I don't know, the universe or undersea ridges are "built". If you persist in using the term "built" for things which don't (according to me) involve a sentient builder, I must persist in considering you a religious and, consequently, ignoring you.
If you've got to say something about the matter, try something like this:
A set of myriad circumstances has resulted (meaning, at the present moment) in the so-called dominant species on Earth having a tendency to develop faiths and to afterwards wonder about such matters as whether it was built to develop faith.
No, the whole addended idea sucks. Philosophy is not "I believe X." Philosophers argue about the definition of philosophy, but yours is definiteloy not up for contention.
Yes, I thikk it might have gone something like that. All it proves is that we're built to develop faith. Maybe pure evolution made us that way. It doesn't imply intelligent design.
Heh, heh. Wide open.
Just to song-comprehension. I'm pretty sure he's saying something specific. Okay, 70% sure.
I think the point is, any set of beliefs/truths written by someone else is bound to have things you don't entirely accept as true - or, at the very least, aren't expressed exactly the way you'd express them. Religions like Christianity and Egoism have tons of these, of course, and people who claim that Christianity/Egoism perfectly express their set of accepted truths are entirely full of shit. You accept some of what the Summa said as true, but why say "I hold with Summa philosophy" or "I believe in the Summa philosophy"? (note: I know you haven't.) Why bring in the Summas at all, instead of just saying, um, "I accept that nothingness is governed by some law, and you can create nothingness by uniting matter with anti-matter, and matter comes from the potential of something somehow getting an edge over the potential of nothing"? Same goes for Nietzsche.
It strikes me that the only advantages of claiming adherence to some preexisting-but-flawed philosophy rather than simply expressing what you hold to be true (barring the actual existence of a God who can put hot coals on your feet) are:
1) it saves time, and
2) you think it lends some credibility to what you believe, so your not just a wacky guy who believes wacky things, but a follower of Summa.
That's all fine, but REALLY? I mean 1) the time you save is bound to be re-lost explaining or justifying all the things you don't accept in your claimed preexisting philosophy, and 2) if you need to give yourself credibility you're not such an ace believer, are you?
Secondly, the rest of your comment shows you make what we'll call THE POETE'S DISTINCTION between things making sense and things feeling right (or being a "personal preference"). I believe a reasoning person would say "things that make sense feel right and things that don't make sense don't feel right." Only an unreasoning (and therefore, dupish) person would say "things that make sense don't feel right, and things that feel right often don't make sense." These are people constantly on their guard for scientists and Democrats trying to trick them into committing evil with their everpresent 'facts and figures'. Balls to them, I say. Balls, balls, balls.
Thirdly: I doubt if Socrates would have said he was Socratic. Plato would, though. Jesus probably thought he was a Jew.
By whom are people built to have faith? You're doing the "purpose of species" thing again.
People have faith because of the following:
BIFF: Why does the sun go up and down?
CLARK: I dunno.
BIFF: Maybe somebody's making it move?
CLARK: Sure, but who?
BIFF: I dunno. Big guy, I guess. Invisible.
CLARK: Man, I'd hate to piss him off. Probably drop the sun on my head if I did.
BIFF: That reminds me of when my mom got a mammoth dropped on her head. Dang, I wish death didn't suck so bad!
CLARK: Yeah, but it does, though, doesn't it?
BIFF [musingly]: But maybe not... I bet if anyone could improve death, the Big Sun Guy could!
CLARK: Yeah, but your mom's dead. We ate her.
BIFF: Not if she had some invisible lifeforce that superexisted her body! Like, I dunno, a soul, I guess.
CLARK: What the fuck are you talking about?
BIFF: The soul. The source of your morality, stupid!
CLARK [clubbing Biff to death]: What morality? [Then,] Oh crap! Biff's dad's gonna kill me to protect his family interests! What the fuck?
BIFF'S DAD: Big Sun Guy's gonna kill your ass!
CLARK: No, no! Wait! Big Sun Guy teaches tolerance and forgiveness of sins!
BIFF'S DAD: Really? Isn't that kind of pussy-like?
CLARK: You can't call Big Sun Guy pussy-like, he'll kill your ass.
BIFF'S DAD: Oh, right. My bad.
[And so on. Ad infinitum, amen.]
Fine.
ADDENDUM: *For all X excluding "in a philosophy" and its synonyms.
X would have to be in a philosophy. That quibble aside, the glaring contradiction was obvious to me from the beginning. I let it slide, rightly imagining that anyone who bothered to complain about it was a religious, and therefore not worth my attention.
Should use 5 line stanzas or 3 stanzas with 6 lines. You know how the devil likes his numbers.
The vote of 5 a tad bit ironic.
This does seem to be a common approach to religion. If Cardinal Stinkyfingers says it's that way than it must be. Meanwhile he's sodomizing choir boys on sunday nights.
Don't you think religion should be found by hearing the words of others and comimng to your own conclusions based on what you feel in your heart should be true. The other approach just scares the hell out of me. It's easier to assume the priest or bible translator is always right than to study a belief system on your own but it is also much less rewarding.
In a way both definitions are right but I'd rather bet my soul on my own conclusions than on someone elses.
Screw specific religion. I would rather read the gospel according to Dovina any day of the week. At least I know I'd be entertained. After all you are the temple of the lord.
Maybe he's Jesus.
zodiac- shut UP. thanks so much, really, b'cause I think yr stuff is , like, stick-in-my-heady and good too. Ew, like, let's have a poemy stroke session, yuh, hee. But I do post on this site for critique, so feel free. I'll do the same.