If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.
Platonic realism is the idea that universals exist independent of space-time and is accessible via the Intellect. Human beings have a priori knowledge of these universals right from the time of creation of the soul. For example:- sweetness, redness, mathematical truths etc are all entities that have an existence of their own.
Moreover the visible world is just a mere shadow copy of these universals. How does the intellect access the forms? Helios emits the divine light and stimulates the activity of the intellect.
So a statement like "Helios emits the divine light and stimulates the activity of the intellect" is an axiom of "...the only philosophical position that has withstood the test of time"?
There is another philosophy called " science" that could make a similar statement, without the ambiguously meaningless words (divine light, activity of the intellect), and test that statement to determine it's accuracy.
Therefore, it looks to me as if the sweeping generalization ("only philosophical position") is false.
Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.
So a statement like "Helios emits the divine light and stimulates the activity of the intellect" is an axiom of "...the only philosophical position that has withstood the test of time"?
Its not an axiom, that's an empirical fact.
There is another philosophy called " science" that could make a similar statement, without the ambiguously meaningless words (divine light, activity of the intellect), and test that statement to determine it's accuracy.
Perhaps people who are not initiated into the mysteries may not easily understand it. Oh, btw many scientists like Roger Penrose and Bernard have already seen the truth through the scientific method. Thank you!
"In fact, there is much in his treatise that is purely scientific in the most modern sense, having to do with the action of light, the sun's effect upon the seasons as well as the circulations of the planets around the sun, which "dance about him as their king, in certain intervals, fixed in relation to him." Most intriguing of all is the idea of the function of the sun in stimulating thought and the higher faculties. Referring to the Phoenicians, Julian cites their teaching that "the rays of light everywhere diffused are the undefiled incarnation [imbodiment] of pure mind." Modern scientists are within an ace of confirming some of these more recondite facts for themselves. "
Therefore, it looks to me as if the sweeping generalization ("only philosophical position") is false.
It is not a sweeping generalization, it might be offending to people who hold different philosophical positions but you cannot hide the truth for too long.
Oh dear. It appears I am too ignorant to engage in this conversation.
Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.
I'm always weary of the words "initiation" "mysteries" and "truth" used in a religious context. Because at the end of the day we're human. We don't know the truth. And anything that claims to have some kind of mystical secret and knowledge that requires initiation has a slight taste of cult to me... Not that it always is. Just that that's my personal experience more often than not.
There are scientific bits in there sure. Like. We need the sun? Really no arguing with that. But there's a lot of pseudo science posing as science to the untrained eye. Generally, a flow and poetic language and a lot of metaphors in a scientific piece of writing is a sign that you're moving our of actual science and in to a more subjective view point. A good scientist will never pass their personal beliefs off as conclusive truth to the world.
You remind me of the babe
What babe?
The babe with the power
What power?
The Power of voodoo
Who do?
You do!
Do what?
Remind me of the babe! Army of Darkness: Guardians of the Chat
Science is not everything and our ancients did not arrived at these truths through science. They practiced theurgy which is still a rejected knowledge in western academia. We do not need science to prove our ideas we have other methods which works and has an efficacy on the empirical world. Those who can see the light will receive immortality while others will be left behind.
Academics tend to look on 'esoteric', 'occult' or 'magical' beliefs with contempt, but are usually ignorant about the religious and philosophical traditions to which these terms refer, or their relevance to intellectual history. Wouter Hanegraaff tells the neglected story of how intellectuals since the Renaissance have tried to come to terms with a cluster of 'pagan' ideas from late antiquity that challenged the foundations of biblical religion and Greek rationality. Expelled from the academy on the basis of Protestant and Enlightenment polemics, these traditions have come to be perceived as the Other by which academics define their identity to the present day. Hanegraaff grounds his discussion in a meticulous study of primary and secondary sources, taking the reader on an exciting intellectual voyage from the fifteenth century to the present day and asking what implications the forgotten history of exclusion has for established textbook narratives of religion, philosophy and science.
Whenever someone says "all," "only," "always," or (of course) their opposites, as a statement of fact, I generally ignore whatever comes after. Generally speaking, such statements are wrong, either by virtue of an honest mistake, or an outright lie.
Comment