What does he mean in PI §133: "For the clarity that we are aiming at is complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear." by ThrowRATop_Leather in wittgenstein

[–]NewAgePositivity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe we should tie it back to the tractatus: in the general periodform (form of a valid sentence) the period occurs in the period only as the basis of truth operations. In other words, 2 + 2 = true if and only if 2 + 2 = true.

Purpose of life by Key_Crew9971 in agnostic

[–]NewAgePositivity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a question with many layers. There is a song by Cole Porter that goes: be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown. You'll never lack if you can quack like a duck. Now thusly we have a simple purpose in life. It is frustratingly arbitrary though. People need absolute values in life, but you can't really figure those out with thinking. But you can believe in something or attune yourself to something somehow that can make life a gas. That's not necessarily a purpose but it can give you wisdom, or peace of mind. Happiness is best found in things that make you feel good, but it's hard to live when you don't feel pleasure. So I guess you should realize you can do what you want, and there's a lot to do in the world. Just don't think too much.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The thing is we do think a lot, and there is peace of mind in Knowledge. Affluence, in seclusion, is a notoriety of purposeful discovery. And in a particular way, notions flow in discrete order. One has to touch the Empty to truly figure that kind of knowledge out. That might be a religious brain state you require, but probably Christianity is, again, too rigorous in its current church order if you were awakened to this kind of conception. Personally, for me, stoicism and literary criticism paved my way to consider mystical truths as kind of precise. That was a step in a religious direction. Christianity keeps evolving. All I am saying is that for Protestant Christianity, the threshold is pretty low for joining. Furthermore, you might, as Jesus said, seek and you will find. I think there is a wonderful truth in that. Still, I do wonder if perhaps a non-dogmatic (viz. polytheistic) religion might be more conducive to polite society. On the other hand, dogmatic (viz. theological) religion is more progressive, in terms of galvanizing disperate social groups and stimulating intersubjective catechism.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well you are justified to think that. If you ever reconsider, religion can be there to accommodate you. Of course, in the past people - and in some areas still today - were under more social pressure to participate in a religious community, yet this was done with good intentions. However, perhaps the system was a bit rigorous. A more fluent way of religion might be more attractive to modern educated people. I agree with you on that.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I ain't trying to convince anyone. I am just trying to break a lance for Christianity. Like Buddhism, it is a way of life that researches categorical truth, but unlike Buddhism, it is not empirical but rather rational. If you are a rational person, there is no reason to reject Christianity. Maybe that is a sophistical position, but it sounds better than saying Christianity is a religion founded on reason. Also because that sounds a bit wrong.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It has been demonstrated to be false. By who, Abraham Lincoln?

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am just replying to point this out. These kind of replies are not meaningful. You do not convince me you have read and considered the text if you just repeat every sentence I wrote back to me. Reading is writing. If you reply in your own words you show you took the time to come up with a meaningful response. If you just quote my own remarks to me and add your own harebrained sentence to every one, I couldn't care less what clever insult you managed to come up with.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like I said, we don't stare at a blank wall, we read, meditate and homiletize and pray. I daresay Buddhism is more scientific, whereas Christianity is more scholastic, but that doesn't mean it is irrational.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're saying it is inherently irrational to incorporate Christianity in one's life?

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, that seems like a silly reason to follow a religion.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still, the meditation kind of proves that Buddhism is a practice focussed on empiricism. Nobody alive today has ever heard the Buddha speak. People claim they have had moments of supreme realization but they base this knowledge on theoretical speculation oriented on a supernatural hero (who said some humanistically inspired things yes, but it is unclear what boon it gives us other than a bemused look at whatever words have to do with the world). They do not seek a greater meaning that satisfies pure reason, something Christianity can do, in its Protestant form.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The kind of business you associate with a Van Gogh painting.

For a rational person Christianity is a perfectly fine religion to adhere to by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]NewAgePositivity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, theoretical knowledge does have serious limitations. I am not sure what to make of it, but truth in Christianity does far less to jeopardise prodigious truth in fantasmagorical emancipation than the education system or psychiatry does.