Rightglory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2017, 07:35 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2017 08:18 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 07:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 06:31 PM)ethos Wrote:  In that historical roller-coaster though, we've always called it "Right-glory". Perhaps a reflection of the 870's strive of a separate from Constantinople or Rome Church.

Glory or belief.... why do you think it is right?

If I understand your question - it's like asking - Mind over Heart, or the opposite. But why pit them against each other at all? Mind without heart is what our current society is. Despicable, to my standard at least. I imagine you don't like it either?

To answer your question - saying "belief" is so cold, it gives me shivers. Right belief does sound nazi. An Orthodox Christian would regard the aesthetic argument on par with the rest, maybe only his wish to preserve what he has inherited might be paramount to that, wishing not to damage it with his ego. But we get into aesthetics now, and that is another unprovable territory I guess. Actually, even in the field of aesthetics you could find a compass, if you are honest enough with yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2017, 08:04 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2017 08:08 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 04:30 PM)ethos Wrote:  Reading your reasoning I am curious whether you know a book by A. Damasio called "Descartes' Error"? Its about a neuroscientist studying a patient with brain damage. Literally, a three meter long metal rod was protruding from his head after an explosion while drilling a tunnel. He survived (and became the scientists' guinea-pig). The book argues that after the brain injury, the man remained fully sane, though lost his ability for empathy, for feeling emotions. And it turned out that incident made him incapable of choosing. Completely incapable of making simple choices as wanting tea with sugar or without, as the centers in the brain responsible to that were affected (obliterated in fact). The book deals with a lot more, thats just some of it, but out of this case it is deduced that Reason can not be separated from Emotion, that strive being sadly a chimera of the Enlightenment era.

I have heard of both the book and the case study, but have not read the book.

Reason works best when separated from emotion in a certain way. After all, reason has it's own rules which emotions can distort. But I don't think anyone nowadays recommends that people should be emotionless altogether -- just the reverse.
Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2017, 08:14 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 08:04 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  ...
But I don't think anyone nowadays recommends that people should be emotionless altogether -- just the reverse.

Last week's Socrates Cafe meetup (here in KL) was about just that i.e. emotions. Next week, I will be hosting and attempting to show the evolutionary path from emotions to ethics/political opinions.

At the end (given that the previous discussion was about trans-humanism), the question was posed as to whether we'd be better off without emotions.

I was the only one who said "yes" (to which I had the inevitable comment about me being an emotionless Vulcan freak) as long as we kept lust. Without lust there'd be no humans (or fun).

Blush

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
12-10-2017, 08:36 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 08:04 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I have heard of both the book and the case study, but have not read the book.

Reason works best when separated from emotion in a certain way. After all, reason has it's own rules which emotions can distort. But I don't think anyone nowadays recommends that people should be emotionless altogether -- just the reverse.
Hobo

Yeah. We need just to check what happens with education and we get a nice picture about the emotion-over-mind craze. Sorry, but the kids nowadays don't know what a border is and the values of making one (by their own selves of course, helped by a teacher or not). Emotional, behavioristic, personal, societal, etc.., And how could you be free in a plain field, without any fence to cross over, without any point of reference? You would lose yourself, you would try to chase away the horizon or the rainbow , making it your reference point... what people seeking to obtain happiness actually do, they try to chase the rainbow and get exhausted in the process. Lead by their passions.

Btw, you know that the Hollywood industry is establishing in our superegos just that - an impossibly high standard of life, making every one of us expect his life ought be one of a promoted to a demi-god superhero. Thus, setting us on course to essentially chase the rainbow. Do you know what is the real name of mount Athos by the way?

(12-10-2017 08:14 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 08:04 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  ...
But I don't think anyone nowadays recommends that people should be emotionless altogether -- just the reverse.

Last week's Socrates Cafe meetup (here in KL) was about just that i.e. emotions. Next week, I will be hosting and attempting to show the evolutionary path from emotions to ethics/political opinions.

At the end (given that the previous discussion was about trans-humanism), the question was posed as to whether we'd be better off without emotions.

I was the only one who said "yes" (to which I had the inevitable comment about me being an emotionless Vulcan freak) as long as we kept lust. Without lust there'd be no humans (or fun).

Blush

DLJ, I'm glad these subjects are discussed around here.

Just a question, Do you assume there might be a difference between lust and love? Do you really reduce love to sex, as Freud? Actually, Freud reduced everything to sex... Isn't this forcefully making ourselves into animals?


Just to mention as well -
You can't imagine how much you help me just by being yourselves and discussing with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2017, 09:07 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 08:36 PM)ethos Wrote:  ...
DLJ, I'm glad these subjects are discussed around here.

Just a question, Do you assume there might be a difference between lust and love? Do you really reduce love to sex, as Freud? Actually, Freud reduced everything to sex... Isn't this forcefully making ourselves into animals?

Just to mention as well -
You can't imagine how much you help me just by being yourselves and discussing with me.

Well, we are animals.
We're perambulating digestive systems with smart phones.

Big Grin

Yes, there is a difference. I draw a distinction between the limbic system responses and the cognitive system responses. The latter includes a rationalisation/representation of the 'feeling'.

There is a lust (or disgust) 'alert' which is completely involuntary. And that can trigger an auto-response: fight, flight, freeze or fuck (other words beginning with 'f').

Love is a category-term that can include a bunch of stuff: attachment, affection, affinity (other words beginning with 'a').

To quote one of TTA's greatest philosophers:

[Image: 167o6cj.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
12-10-2017, 09:25 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 07:24 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 02:55 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  ...
if memory serves, the reverse is not true and Catholics are not permitted by the Orthodox church to receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox parish; likewise the Orthodox patriarchs don't allow their members to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church.

Well it's good to know that they do have some standards.

Angel

Funny. However I'm surprised that there is no reciprocity and because there isn't that the RCC hasn't said to them "why don't you blow me".

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
12-10-2017, 11:04 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 07:35 PM)ethos Wrote:  If I understand your question - it's like asking - Mind over Heart, or the opposite. But why pit them against each other at all? Mind without heart is what our current society is. Despicable, to my standard at least. I imagine you don't like it either?

If religion is heart in this then I would say that current (polish) society is chock-full of it and it indeed is despicable with it's religious taboos that make women second class citizens unable to choose abortion when they need it, or with denying same sex couples right to marriage, or by opposing right to good death.

Nothing of value would be lost by cutting heart - religion - out and replacing it with more reason. Maybe then people would realize that their tribal superstitions shouldn't be applied to others.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2017, 11:28 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2017 11:31 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Rightglory?
My question to any kind of Christian is always the same. It's a genuine question out of curiosity, and isn't supposed to be confrontational.

Why do you want to endorse the Bible/Christianity from a moral perspective? To me, it makes no difference whether there is any truth to the religion, just like it would make no difference if a book about some fascist dictator was about a real or imaginary person. I wouldn't glorify them, either way. I can discuss the book's truth however, and even take away any good ideas it may happen to contain, without having to pledge my allegiance.

It's the "all or nothing" approach about religion I find strange. I won't take offense if you aren't interested in addressing any of this though Smile

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
13-10-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 07:27 PM)ethos Wrote:  "Denominations" (Heresies) formed thanks to Karl the Great, the Frankish King, who, due to his appetites for the title of "Roman Emperor" (Rome was sacked quite a long time before he was born...) and thanks to the fears and complicity of the Roman pope Leo lll, became one of the reasons that the Roman Catholics drifted away from orthodoxy. Quite the political reason, indeed!

Do you have sources for the claim that Karl wanted the title of "roman emperor" specifically? He certainly was looking for a title fitting his position and de facto power and (as your wiki article confirms) certainly talked to the pope about that too.
It is heavily contested however if the actual coronation was planned as it happened. The pope crowning the emperor would/had put the pope above the emperor which certainly was not in Kalrs interest. This lasting conflict between German emperors and popes finally escalated in the events which lead to Heinrich IV going to Canossa in 1076/1077. Ultimately the pope lost (was exiled later by Heinrich) but papacy won (bishops were appointed by the pope and not the emperor anymore).

I also fail to see how multiple denominations (heresies from the orthodox church) formed thanks to Karl. Sure catholicism (and much later protestantism) was strenghened and fortified in the frankish (later french and german) empire due to the close ties of the german emperors to the popes, but were there other heresies? Or do you mean those two?

I am interested because where i am from we call him Karl too, and not "Charles". French are so gay. Tongue

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
13-10-2017, 02:09 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 01:34 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  ...
I am interested because where I am from we call him Karl too, and not "Charles". French are so gay. Tongue

Yabut! "Chas" is more gayer.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: