|
Author
|
Topic: What are you? EvC poll
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 8 of 126 (306500)
04-25-2006 12:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by 1.61803
04-24-2006 10:06 PM
|
|
Then on the other side of the camp is the folks who believe that everything is just one stuff. The monist. So just for fun pick a camp: Dualist or Monist and explain your reasons why you think that. By "monist" do you mean materialist? One could also be a monist and be an idealist (everything is mental). If there is no God and evolution is true, then materialism would seem to follow. I don't see how you are going to get something mental out of something physical. It's difficult however for me to ignore my private experience of incorporeal mentality, so I'm not sure.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by 1.61803, posted 04-24-2006 10:06 PM | | 1.61803 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 04-25-2006 2:22 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 20 of 126 (306535)
04-25-2006 3:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by 1.61803
04-25-2006 2:22 PM
|
|
Re: monist =one stuff, dualist = 2 stuffs.
By dualist I mean that there is spiritual substances and material substances. That there is 2 types of stuff. Which camp are you in? and why? I prefer the world "mental" to "spiritual." I'm not sure what camp I'm in.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 04-25-2006 2:22 PM | | 1.61803 has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 40 of 126 (306644)
04-26-2006 6:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
04-26-2006 5:40 AM
|
|
Monist. There is just one stuff. God. Everything is a derivative of that. Whatver it might be drivative of, the question is whether there is only one type of reality. What about "mentality" and "physicality"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 5:40 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:41 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 42 of 126 (306665)
04-26-2006 8:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by iano
04-26-2006 6:41 AM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Therefore talk of 'reality' is talk of pseudo-reality The world we experience is not real?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by iano, posted 04-26-2006 6:41 AM | | iano has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: why does the choice have to be made?
It might come down to what is really meant by the terms, natural and supernatural.
If anything that is known and explainable is natural, and that which is not is supernatural; then the choice is simple, and Monism is the answer. Unless there are some things that can never be explained; in which case, there will always be a supernatural element...which allows one to argue for Dualism.
Maybe "supernatural" means "incorporeal." So if one thought the mind were incorporeal, then it would be supernatural (dualism), whereas if one thought the mind were physical, it would be natural (monism). This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-04-2006 10:29 AM
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 65 of 126 (309100)
05-04-2006 3:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by lfen
05-04-2006 1:17 PM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
You should start on thread on this question. I can't start any more threads right now. First I have to figure out how something can come from nothing. That may take awhile. Maybe YOU should start a thread. I think, ifen, that you may be a philosophical idealist.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by lfen, posted 05-04-2006 1:17 PM | | lfen has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by iano, posted 05-04-2006 6:24 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 68 of 126 (309192)
05-04-2006 7:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by iano
05-04-2006 6:24 PM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Given what your attempting to figure out, I don't see a whole lot of difference between you
I mean he thinks that reality is mental in nature (or "spiritual"--same thing). I don't think that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by iano, posted 05-04-2006 6:24 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by iano, posted 05-04-2006 7:37 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 73 by lfen, posted 05-04-2006 11:07 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 70 of 126 (309199)
05-04-2006 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by iano
05-04-2006 7:37 PM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Which is what you perpetually seem to require (ad hom not intended) If you mean I try to figure things out, I do. Quite seriously.
I cannot help the notion that unless it a solution is generated from within RR's own brain it will never be found acceptable. It doesn't have to come from me (although that would be nice), as long as it makes sense. I could read it in a book, for example. I get ideas from books, lots of them. But the rule is, I have to be able to understand it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by iano, posted 05-04-2006 7:37 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by iano, posted 05-04-2006 8:03 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 75 of 126 (309302)
05-05-2006 5:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by iano
05-04-2006 7:37 PM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
I cannot help the notion that unless a solution is generated from within RR's own brain it will never be found acceptable Actually, you make a good point, iano. This amateur philosophizing is rather ridiculous.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by iano, posted 05-04-2006 7:37 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:14 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 78 of 126 (309307)
05-05-2006 6:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by iano
05-05-2006 6:14 AM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Philosophy itself is ridiculous as a means to any end Yes, sometimes I think that all discourse is rhetoric.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:14 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 79 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:48 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 82 of 126 (309411)
05-05-2006 2:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by iano
05-05-2006 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
I think there is more to it than that. That there is a point to it. So your point is not that I'm wasting my time with pointless arguments, but that I'm doing something evil?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 6:48 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 2:38 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 84 of 126 (309426)
05-05-2006 2:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by iano
05-05-2006 2:38 PM
|
|
Re: He is the original I AM, we're derivative i am's
Don't take too much offence though. No, no, I'm not offended at all. I just wanted to get clear what you were telling me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 2:38 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by iano, posted 05-05-2006 3:00 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2