You may quote postings in my website, but please credit the author.
Sure, given your definition philosophy is therapeutic. thanks for the comment.
Zar, you have Interesting ideas and perspectives on the issue of religion and science, although I don't agree on much of what you say. We could, if we had the time and inclination, have a wonderful debate. But who has the time? Thanks for your feedback and contribution.
Russell, if you really want to write, go ahead and write. The best way to learn to write is to write; in addition, sometimes a course in writing can help, especially if you get some good feedback from the instructor and other students. Reading good writers is another way to start building good writing habits and techniques. That's my five cents of advice. Good luck finding time to do it, given the demands of a working career!
I suppose if the view of some physicists is correct, there is no one, definite past. I'm replying to your comments of the past few days, but that path of the past my not be targeted by my reply, so it might never connect. Also, among those philosophical-"scientific views" is that objective reality as we know may be a fiction. As flesh-and-blood persons, you and I are mere fiction; after all, atomic physics has shown that all reality is nothing but atoms and energy. So maybe my reply will never be seen by your collection of atoms (which are mostly empty space and energy anyhow), even if it makes sense to say that collection of atoms can perceive, read, and comprehend. So maybe you're right in your objection to my objection to the crazy metaphysics that many scientists and philosophers adopt. Of course, this is mere complaining, which I suppose your commentary was not? But I appreciate your form of complaint anyway.
Yes, a poetic expression of the poet's vision of God and the world, and man's limited vision of reality. Interesting and beautiful.
I intended only to give an example of how some people might argue the case for determinism. If you'll note, I go on to express some doubt about many explanations of human behavior in terms of causal conditions; yet I don't deny that causal explanations of human behavior has its place and can reveal much about why we do as we do.
You have made thoughtful, interesting
remarks. I don't have any problem with claims that mystical experiences can be very significant and even disclose 'knowledge' about oneself. My quarrel is with those who claim that mystical experiences can base claims as to objective reality, a 'knowledge' that rivals scientific knowledge.
Yup, we can't please everyone! Sorry about causing your "eyeballs to ache." We don't wish to cause anyone any suffering.
It would be interesting the see what you mean by "commentary being completely rationalized"? It would be interesting to take up the subject of what constitutes 'proof' in philosophical arguments and discussions. I'll bet you that proof of any kind is hard to find. As to being convinced of Orwell's call of honesty and clarity, I don't see how any rational person could question the legitimacy of such a call.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig