Argument from personal revelation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2017, 09:27 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:15 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I think I agree with most of what you are saying. Except I don't understand why you hold that the notion of "true self" must be static and it cannot be fluid.

Interesting question. It's largely because of semantics, I think -- the concept is usually put forth as "true self," singular, rather than "true selves." How much could one's core change before it ceased to be true?

Or could the "true" part be referring to how accurately we perceive and/or accept ourselves, rather than referring to a particular personality type?

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
26-08-2017, 10:40 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:09 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  There is a well known analogy called "Blind men and an elephant", which is used to illustrate this point.

It's about a group of blind people who learn about and conceptualize an elephant by touching it. Each man touches a specific part of the elephant and describes it based on that partial experience. They describe the elephant as something like a snake (trunk), rope (tail), spear (tusk) or tree (legs) depending on where they touched. All descriptions are in disagreement and all are wrong, but all of them are also partially right.

That's kind of silly. Who deprived these people of touching the complete elephant?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
27-08-2017, 12:19 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(26-08-2017 09:27 PM)Astreja Wrote:  Interesting question. It's largely because of semantics, I think -- the concept is usually put forth as "true self," singular, rather than "true selves." How much could one's core change before it ceased to be true?
I think fluidity of the "true self" does not necessarily mean it substantially changes. As an analogy, water is fluid, it constantly takes new forms, yet it's always water. The substrate does not change. Our self is constantly changing as we experience life through time, yet something substantial in us remains the same, that which permits our identity to survive.

Quote:Or could the "true" part be referring to how accurately we perceive and/or accept ourselves, rather than referring to a particular personality type?
That's exactly what I think. Once someone perceives the self as the substrate, which is unchanging, and not its mere appearance, the personality, which is ever-changing, one could say she/he is aware of the true self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2017, 12:38 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(26-08-2017 10:40 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:09 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  There is a well known analogy called "Blind men and an elephant", which is used to illustrate this point.

It's about a group of blind people who learn about and conceptualize an elephant by touching it. Each man touches a specific part of the elephant and describes it based on that partial experience. They describe the elephant as something like a snake (trunk), rope (tail), spear (tusk) or tree (legs) depending on where they touched. All descriptions are in disagreement and all are wrong, but all of them are also partially right.

That's kind of silly. Who deprived these people of touching the complete elephant?
I think analogies are sometimes silly but they can illustrate something nevertheless. This well-known analogy might be helpful for some to understand that there can be inconsistent descriptions of something, yet all of them would be partially right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2017, 02:33 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(27-08-2017 12:38 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I think analogies are sometimes silly but they can illustrate something nevertheless. This well-known analogy might be helpful for some to understand that there can be inconsistent descriptions of something, yet all of them would be partially right.

It illustrates nothing and anybody influenced by it is a simpleton IMO.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
27-08-2017, 11:50 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
There is no "true self"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 12:12 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(27-08-2017 11:50 PM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  There is no "true self"

[Image: giphy.gif]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 12:13 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(21-08-2017 07:13 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  I just wanted to touch on this quickly, simply because this seems to be the last hill that theists will die on, as they claim their religion is true.
"God told me," they say. "God revealed himself to me."
No... no he didn't. Understand what you're implying if you say that God talked to you and not me. Why would he do that? Does he care more about your salvation than mine?

As the good book says- "Reach out to God and he'll reach out to you".
Atheists don't want to log onto him so they're not going to get a "power download"..Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 04:56 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(28-08-2017 12:13 AM)Propwash Wrote:  
(21-08-2017 07:13 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  I just wanted to touch on this quickly, simply because this seems to be the last hill that theists will die on, as they claim their religion is true.
"God told me," they say. "God revealed himself to me."
No... no he didn't. Understand what you're implying if you say that God talked to you and not me. Why would he do that? Does he care more about your salvation than mine?

As the good book says- "Reach out to God and he'll reach out to you".
Atheists don't want to log onto him so they're not going to get a "power download"..Smile

Many atheists are former believers who did their best to sincerely "reach out" to connect with the god that they were certain was there. Your statement is simply ignorant. Atheists, as a rule, don't believe because there is no rational reason to believe, not because of what they do or do not want to believe.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
28-08-2017, 05:19 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(28-08-2017 04:56 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 12:13 AM)Propwash Wrote:  As the good book says- "Reach out to God and he'll reach out to you".
Atheists don't want to log onto him so they're not going to get a "power download"..Smile

Many atheists are former believers who did their best to sincerely "reach out" to connect with the god that they were certain was there. Your statement is simply ignorant. Atheists, as a rule, don't believe because there is no rational reason to believe, not because of what they do or do not want to believe.

You clearly weren't trying to find God then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: