Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Donnadogsoth

  • Content count

    1600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Donnadogsoth last won the day on May 31

Donnadogsoth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

47 Good

1 Follower

About Donnadogsoth

Recent Profile Visitors

916 profile views
  1. Define power. I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit. The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic. Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem. The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while. A mutable being cannot be timeless, and so not the Origin. It's precisely like it was before you were born. And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference? Do you remember every second of your life to date?
  2. Interesting stuff about mirror neurons and empathy and the need to change minds through acceptance and openness. We are robotic in our brain circuit activity and need to transcend that if we are to survive. Got scared by the "one world" vibe. Sounds like a way to justify dropping our borders, which is another way of saying that the West has no right to exist, which means that I as a Westerner clinging to particular values, principles, and cultural artefacts have no right to exist at all, much less in a nurturing culture.
  3. “A society without strong beliefs,” declared Regis Debray in his interview with J.P. Enthoven in Le Nouvel Observateur, (October 10, 1981), ” is a society about to die.” Modern liberalism is particularly critical of nationalism. Hence, the question needs to be raised: Can modern liberal society provide strong unifying communal beliefs in view of the fact that on the one hand it views communal life as nonessential, while on the other, it remains impotent to envision any belief – unless this belief is reducible to economic conduct? --Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunic, “Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft”: A Sociological View of the Decay of Modern Society
  4. Probably something relatively simple, like "Hardness! Grrr!" They wouldn't be self-aware, but might experience sensations when broken or melted.
  5. Mindlessless is inconceivable. What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness? That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument. Ergo, no substance can lack mind.
  6. Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power. Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well. At this point we are talking about the Creator.
  7. You yourself said “if you are to keep a "virtue score" based on what you have listed, it seems like a tie to me.” I'm saying that if it is a tie, we should go with the most popular, if “virtue archetype” is what we are going for as opposed to truth. I concede your point that non-Western cultures will develop their own non-Western interpretations of Christianity, some of which are repugnant. There is a white identity that has interpreted Christianity a certain way, but at the cost of its own identity. When Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." he did not mean that we should make it such that there are no distinctions between people--no men or women, for example. But the defense of personal and group identity is lacking in the Bible, because the passages are vulnerable to liberal interpretation. Let's say we agree that Jesus is worth keeping, but there is the “wisdom and strength of men” gap. How do you propose to bridge that gap without destroying the rationality and virtue of Jesus, of man being made in the image of God, without merely creating a new Pantheon?
  8. I'm saying that Jesus has a huge amount of what accounting calls "good will" or the intangible value of an asset, such as the popularity of McDonalds or Ronald McDonald, which have their own goodwill values attached. Paganism is enjoying a minor renaissance with the New Age movement, but still faces an uphill battle. Why buck the tide if Jesus is just as good? As I wrote earlier, the advantage Jesus has over the pagan gods is that Jesus actually existed and thus has priority. Add to that the universal rationality that Christianity developed out of Jesus, which paganism has no analogue for, and the final judgement. Jesus also offers--and this is seen in the behaviour of the original Christians--a way out of fear, guilt, and selfishness, three impediments to happiness.
  9. Jesus embodies rationality, power, and love, while explaining at once why the universe is beset with decay and pain, what the nature of human beings is, and whence cometh ultimate justice and mercy. The universe is what it is not due to his design but due to a wilful falling away from the proper path. Rationally, the universe is made to be intelligible-in-principle, which humans, made in his image, gain power over through discoveries of principle. Beyond the universe, at the end of days, man can expect to be judged according to his conduct and character, and thus all historical wrongs will be righted and everyone receive what he deserves. Jesus is also love incarnate, and so in him power and goodness rationally converge. He both wills to do good, and has the power to do good. Jesus is thus the ultimate role model for virtue, especially love, honesty, and piety. He also drove the money-changers from the temple thus giving a divine benchmark for the use of tempered force against evil. He did not kill the money-changers, he merely drove them away. Jesus also has the advantage of being the most well-known figure in the Western world, and so jump-starting his influence has a greater chance of success than does reviving pagan figures.
  10. You still have an inner understanding of the principle of identity that you are using to clarify and confirm what your senses are telling you. You can have a logical mind and not know the first things about the discipline of logic. Developing logic into an explicit discipline is another matter.
  11. Then I ask again, wouldn't it be better to base one's conduct on an actual role model rather than an archetypal one? As you say, So much the better with a real man who was also God, who presents an impossible standard for man to follow, and who promises judgement of souls.
  12. No man willingly dies for what he knows is a lie. Many were martyred after seeing the risen Christ. The martyrs who came after and had no way to check the story died by faith alone, but the martyrs like Peter died for something they actually saw. That something is the virtue and power of Christ.
  13. Just to sum up, the contenders for timelessness amount to various aspects of Natural Law. This Natural Law is timeless, unlike the Universe, which changes continuously. But, how can a law exist outside of a mind? The atheist will reply that the word “law” is a metaphor. Natural law just describes how the Universe is, it doesn't imply a consciousness the law is in. Here we find a brute fact: “Natural law just is”. Since this violates the principle of sufficient reason, we can ignore it, and proceed to the only rational conclusion, namely a Creator who contains the timeless Law.
  14. Erwin, Wouldn't it be better to have a role model who actually existed?
  15. Neither brains nor the concepts they think about are timeless, then? If not them, what? As I said, universal law? But in that case, in which timeless book are these universal laws--or Law--written? In other words we need a mind to retain this Law, or else why would it work when we're not thinking about it?