The Magician, Emperor, and Justice are all powerful figures in the Tarot deck, each wearing a red robe that symbolizes passion, power, and action. Red is chosen carefully for its symbolism, representing fire energy and the spark of activation and manifestation. The robe has no buttons, making it easy to slip on and off, indicating the Magician’s ability to slip between levels of consciousness and spiritual dimensions.
The most important colors in Tarot cards include red, yellow, black, and white. Each color has its own unique meaning and can convey a range of emotions and feelings. Red is often associated with courage, determination, and the life force, and is commonly associated with the suit of Wands. Orange is about harmony and intelligence.
The Emperor tarot card is often associated with a father figure or an older, established individual who embodies authority, ambition, and leadership in various aspects of life. The outer red robe signifies self-awareness and willpower, while the blue collar at the throat associating The Hierophant signifies power, passion, strength, ability, and leadership.
Red is a power color for many people in real life, and its significance in Tarot readings can impact your future. The Three of Wands card, for example, represents fire, passion, and desire, while Justice wears a crown with a small square on it representing well-ordered thoughts and a red robe with a green mantle. A little white shoe pops out from the red robe, which means “be angry” or “enraged”.
In the Tarot of Marseilles, Justice wears a red cape and a blue robe, symbolizing his power, passion, and energy for life. The Major Arcana Tarot cards are named after the Major Arcana Tarot, which is a significant aspect of the Tarot’s history, symbolism, and divination.
📹 Socrates’ Secret to EXPOSING Fools
Discover how Socrates’ genius mind games and relentless questioning can break down even the most stubborn arguments.
What is the most powerful tarot card?
While some people view tarot as a tool for self-reflection and guidance, others see it as a form of entertainment or a means to explore deeper aspects of the subconscious mind. But among these 78 cards, is there one that stands out as the most powerful? The answer is not so simple, as different cards have different meanings and impacts, depending on the context, the question, and the interpretation of the reader. However, some cards are generally considered to be more influential and have a strong impact on human lives. Those are:- 1. The Fool – It is the first card of the Major Arcana and believed to be the most influential, positive and powerful one indicating the new beginnings. It is numbered zero which indicates that it has infinite possibilities and limitless freedom.
Is depicted as a young man who is about to step off a cliff, with a dog at his feet, a bag on his shoulder, and a white rose in his hand.
Is often considered one of the most powerful Tarot cards and marked as number I. This card represents the skill of making things happen and turning ideas into reality. It shows the ability to bring spiritual energy into our everyday lives. The Magician’s control over earth, air, fire, and water symbolizes the potential to create and transform ourselves. 3. The Tower –
What tarot cards indicate luck?
The Wheel of Fortune card, a part of the Major Arcana, is a symbol of destiny, fortune, success, elevation, luck, and felicity. It has been modeled since the 15th century after the medieval concept of Rota Fortunae, the wheel of the goddess Fortuna. The card typically features a six- or eight-spoked wheel, often attended by an individual dressed in an Egyptian-style headdress. In some decks, the wheel is also attended by an individual wearing a blindfold.
The wheel is not always inscribed with any lettering, but the letters T-A-R-O (clockwise) or T-O-R-A (counter clockwise) can be found aligned against four of the spokes, which can also be interpreted as R-O-T-A, the Latin word meaning “wheel”. In some decks, such as the Waite, the wheel is inscribed with additional alchemical symbols representing the four elements: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. The Waite card also features four yellow winged creatures representing the symbols of the four Evangelists, represented by the fixed astrological signs Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius. Additionally, the wheel is accompanied by the Hebrew letters י-ה-ו-ה, usually transliterated as YHWH (Yahweh – Hebrew for God).
What does the red cloak symbolize in tarot?
The Justice Tarot card is a powerful symbol of justice, power, and fairness. It features Lady Justice wearing a red cloak, a crown symbolizing authority, a sword representing the swift hand of justice, and scales in her left hand representing intuition and impartiality. The white shoe in the card symbolizes the spiritual reminder that the consequences of one’s actions will be felt, regardless of the card’s orientation.
These symbols convey the message of balance, fairness, and truth, encouraging integrity and understanding in decision-making. The Justice Tarot card’s significance as a Major Arcana card is linked to its role in teaching life’s lessons and fostering spiritual growth.
What are the suit cards in tarot?
The Minor Arcana, also known as Lesser Arcana, are the suit cards in a cartomantic tarot deck. Originating in northern Italy in the 1440s, these cards were designed for tarot card games. They typically have four suits each of 10 unillustrated pip cards numbered one to ten, along with four court cards. French Tarot is the second most popular card game in France after Belote. Cartomantic tarot cards emerged in France in the late 18th century, popularized by occultists like Etteilla. The terms “Major” and “Minor Arcana” originate from Jean-Baptiste Pitois, writing under the name Paul Christian.
What does a cloak symbolize?
A cloak, a long, heavy coat, was an Old Testament symbol of authority and the power of God. When Elijah first met Elisha, he threw his cloak around him, symbolizing the anointing of the Spirit of God. Elisha felt the weight of the anointing and followed Elijah. Now, with Elijah gone to heaven, Elisha must go on. Picking up the cloak he left behind, he goes back the way they came, knowing God is with him as the water of the Jordan River divides.
A follower of Jesus, such as an old Christian grandmother, can inspire others through her faith. Her devotion to church, love for hymns, daily Bible reading, prayer, and marriage to her grandfather will inspire her children and grandchildren.
What are the 4 different suits of cards?
Early European playing cards had a lack of uniformity, with decks consisting of 52 cards in four suits: Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, and Clubs. The suits were adopted from French playing cards, which were standardized by the mid-fifteenth century. Suits in Italy were similar, and decks in late medieval Germany did not have standard suit symbols or hierarchies.
No cards survive from earlier than about 1430, but contemporary texts suggest that the earliest cards from the fourteenth century had figures borrowed from the social structure at court, including kings and queens, knaves, officials and functionaries, and members of diverse occupations. All were ranked in a distinct order, usually indicated by numbers.
The exhibition The World in Play: Luxury Cards, 1430–1540, focuses on decks of playing cards in late medieval Germany, which did not have standard suit symbols or hierarchies.
Who wears red robes?
The red robe, also known as the red cassock, is worn by certain members of the Catholic Church, including cardinals, bishops, and chaplains, who hold specific roles in the hierarchy. The red color symbolizes the blood of martyrs and represents the cardinal’s willingness to defend the faith even to the point of shedding his own blood. Some bishops and chaplains also wear the red robe as a sign of their office and authority within the Church.
To pick the best red robe, consider the size and style, as women’s red robes should be loose-fitting and comfortable. Red robes typically come in two lengths: above the knee and mid-calf length, with mid-calf lengths popular during colder months and shorter ones for summer activities.
What do red cloaks represent?
The color red has been historically associated with spirituality and has come to symbolize a number of concepts and figures. These include female witch shamans, womb priestesses, those who follow the rose path, those who honor Maria Magdalene or Mary, those who embody sovereignty, the fiery spirit, the holy grail, and the blood of Jesus.
What does the red symbols signify?
Red has various symbolic meanings across cultures, including life, health, vigor, war, courage, anger, love, and religious fervor. In moments of rage, lust, or embarrassment, bright red oxygenated blood rushes to the skin’s surface as a response to the “fight or flight” sympathetic nervous system. Theories about the evolution of this physiological trait focus on asserting dominance or appearing more attractive to potential mates. In sports, the color red has been found to impact match results, with soccer teams achieving greater results when wearing predominantly red shirts compared to white and blue shirts.
What does each card suit symbolize?
The card symbols include hearts (denoting love), diamonds (representing wealth), spades (signifying intellectual challenges), and clubs (symbolizing growth and creativity).
What does a red robe symbolize?
Red is a common color used for vestments and altar cloths, symbolizing the fire of the Holy Spirit and the blood shed by martyrs. The color red is utilized on feast days and to veil the crucifix on Good Friday, in commemoration of the blood of Christ shed on the cross. Additionally, red is employed in the fabrication of vestments and in the veiling of the crucifix on Good Friday.
📹 MEANINGS OF ALL 78 TAROT CARDS
On this video we will explore meanings of all 78 cards from the Tarot. We will go over its upright and reverse meanings as well as …
Sadly, from my experiences over the past 30+ years, ignorance is rewarded, arrogance is encouraged, and quippy quips ALWAYS outplay facts, data, science, or reality. And if you’re socially popular, you’re GOOD TO GO, BABY! 💪😎✌️ Say or do whatever you like; as long as your crowd wants to believe you, they will. And it’ll be accepted as cult gospel. No exceptions.
I say it all the time, “introspection is what is missing in society”. We live in a “haters gonna hate…” age when everyone is special and the ego is so built up as to discount any criticism, reduce it to being a flaw in the critic. We never stop to ask ourselves “am I wrong here?” because we don’t have to, they just hate.
The Dunning-Kruger effect IS NOT about intelligence. It specifically covers a bias surrounding knowledge within a particular domain. People who lack much domain knowledge overestimate their skill in said domain. People who have an intermediate amount of knowledge tend to underestimate their level of skill. Then finally, people with a great deal of knowledge have a relatively accurate assessment of their own skill level.
Most people today do not have the intelligence or emotional discipline to use the socratic method. Ive run into this growing trend of people who will ask a question, then become upset or interrupt you can even finish answering. (i swear ive ran into this a dozen times in the last week). I had a guy think i said “Obama broke the president” bc he couldn’t understand the use of the word “precedent” when i said “Obama broke some precedent by socializing health care”. He literally thought i was insulting Obama and almost fought me at work bc he had such a limited vocabulary.(spoke almost entirely in ebonics) People are losing their minds in the last few months.
“What is knowledge? When you know a thing, to know that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it. That is knowledge.” “Only one who bursts with eagerness do I instruct; only one who bubbles with excitement, do I enlighten. If I hold up one corner and the student cannot return the other three, I do not go on.” —Confucius 551-479 BC
It was put very astutely by my favorite comedian Sebastian Maniscalco. He said that before the internet, bad ideas and looney people were in their mothers’ basement and they stayed there. But now, they find each other on the internet and become a movement. The issue is that humans are tribal and feel power in the societies they create, this means that given the impartial inclusivity of the internet, people who are in the distinct minority on topics or theories can find a meaningful number of each other to make a splash. In theory, this can be good just as much as bad, but in reality, a minority with an agenda tends to be louder than a silent majority and it ends up getting attention and traction especially when mass media goes full capitalism and boosts things that sell well instead of what is “good.”
The socratic debate was intended for two or more actual thinkers to come to a common ground, but that happens when the parties have good will and are actively looking to contribute, that’s exactly why Socrates believed that for things pertaining to governance and policy, the common rabble should have no say in it as they are simply not geared to contribute in any meaningful way and time is proving him right. Social media is not a place of discourse, it’s an outlet for mindless partisanship for individuals that are easily swayed by sophists and ideologues that are many times just as ignorant as the masses they try to trick into pointless bickering. But again, that’s simply part of the plan. Keep the masses divided with incendiary rhetoric and malicious messaging, separate them in blocks of potential voters, retain power, so there’s no good will to be had and without good will, there is no discourse, no common ground, no solutions, only captive voters.
My youngest child asked me what I knew a out stoicism 😅 I had to admit that my understanding was ” question everything”! He then went on to give me his, explanation and presented me with a book called, ” The lives of the stoics” He had just turned seventeen. ” You can’t put an old head on young shoulders”? 🧐I beg to differ 😆🤣😂👍
When Facebook first started to get controversial, I tried to use the Socratic method to see if I could create a dialog on some controversial issues. I chose the Christian bakery issue specifically because I didn’t have any kind of established opinion on it. I was shocked when the husband of a close friend decided to call be a “biggot” just because I was asking questions! I have since been called worse, but I consider it the opening salvo of what I see as the Woke’s War on Reason, or at least my first experience with it.
I wouldn’t say that the Socratic method is detached from the emotions of humankind. If you look closely, Plato is as dramatic and emotional a writer as Homer is, just in a different manner of delivery. The Apology of Socrates, is one of the most emotional books ever put down. Benjamin Jowett, who translated these works in English long ago, wrote aptly about the dramatic tension necessary to promulgate a Platonic dialogue – Twitter isn’t able to perform such a Platonic dialogue, 1. due to space of writings… But also… 2. Due to a lack of emotive discourse and interest, not an over-abundance of it. Superfluity of wit does not count as true passion like what we find in Socrates’ love. It’s not that Twitter has too much passion, but that its superfluity lacks the true meaning of passion about truth. ”But the Platonic dialogue is a drama as well as a dialogue, of which Socrates is the central figure, and there are lesser performers as well:—the insolence of Thrasymachus, the anger of Callicles and Anytus, the patronizing style of Protagoras, the self-consciousness of Prodicus and Hippias, are all part of the entertainment. To reproduce this living image the same sort of effort is required as in translating poetry. The language, too, is of a finer quality; the mere prose English is slow in lending itself to the form of question and answer, and so the ease of conversation is lost, and at the same time the dialectical precision with which the steps of the argument are drawn out is apt to be impaired.
“Don’t believe everything you think.” For many people their beliefs define their community, their self value, and their identity. I am not immune to this, but I aspire to a Carl Sagan – esque commitment to evidence and knowledge, while understanding that knowledge is temporal in nature and can/will be refined, refuted, and replaced.
I think the difference between people isn’t just knowledge versus beliefs. I think the biggest difference between knowledge and ignorance is the crystallization of the mind. Majority of people don’t even have the capacity to value the opinions of others. While those that do try to find value in other people’s wisdom, also in general tend to be more knowledgeable overall.
God how beautiful. Delphi in Albanian (del fi) means to solve, and the oracle was named Pythia, which in Albanian (Pytia) means question. You went there to solve your problems and the oracle gave you an answer. In Socrates case, he got a question, and this question would lay the foundation on his path to truth. Acknowledging “I know nothing” is the beginning of everything. We are only discovering what this relative sensory perception of reality is. The only truth we can ever know of, is ourselves, the witness of it all. But even it disappears in the realisation of life, as you are one with it and not separate from it. Hence you cannot be a witness, for there is no you to witness. Life is witnessing itself.
Recently saw a story about a high school teacher who was fired for using the Socratic Method after it led students to conclusions that their parents didn’t like. I was immediately reminded of how Socrates was sentenced to death for essentially the same thing. The parents didn’t want their children to learn critical thinking. They wanted their kids to think what they told.
Yes but first you must be open to questioning of course. What good is reason when your very identity denies reality? I don’t need to refute anything you say I agree but this still leaves the question how do you engage such people? Author Chris hedges site multiple first hand sources of how the Nazis were able to exploit this weakness in parliamentary democracy representative democracy to come to power. Of course I’m oversimplifying for brevity but that is the essence. Can a tolerant society survive the intolerant? As paradoxical as that may sound circumstances easily illustrate the importance of this question
Perhaps familiar to you: Freshman – someone who knows nothing and doesn’t know that he knows nothing. Sophomore – someone who knows nothing and knows that he knows nothing. Junior – someone who knows something and doesn’t know that he knows something. Senior – someone who knows something and knows that he knows something.
The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: “Unless ye become as little children” who know that they do NOT know “you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven,” which is KNOWLEDGE EXPERIENCED. Socrates was a wonderful forerunner to Jesus Christ, who has been entirely misunderstood and misrepresented by organized Christianity. And this is because there are two types of people in this world, and most fall into Nietzsche’s second category: “those who want to believe.” And I put it this way: There are two types of people: 1) Those who desire Truth and 2) those who desire Truth…to be what they desire Truth to be! And the latter is our Original Error, Truth be known; the irrational desire to CONTROL Truth, which is a CONTINUING error that springs from insecurity; FEAR. Fear is the block to all knowledge, Truth be known. THEORY of Everything? I’ve found better than that. For, wisdom – which is inversely proportional to fear – is an open door that allows all-encompassing Truth to automatically enter. All important mysteries have been unveiled and published in these “end times”: the end of the old Cycle of Time that the New Cycle may be born. And those who seek shall find.
The Pythian prophetess at Delphi, never said that Socrates was the wisest man in Greece. A friend of Socrates asked the Pythian to tell him whether anyone in Greece was wiser than Socrates, and Oracle answered that there was no man wiser. Note that the Oracle never used the superlative, wisest, but used the comparative, wiser, when she answered there was nobody wiser than Socrates. The Oracle’s statement leaves open the possibility that there are people equally as wise as Socrates. If the Oracle had said the Socrates was the wisest person in Greece then Socrates trying to find someone who could answer the questions for which he lacked answers could be interpreted as impiety and a challenge to the Gods would had told him that he was wisest. Saying the nobody was wiser than Socrates is sufficient reason without denying the Gods for Socrates to search for the person or persons who could questions for which Socrates lacked answers.
“many people call themselves atheists while accepting a Christian morality if you reject the Christian God that discredits the whole thing” um… no… thats a HUGE leap… slow your roll there. that is intellectually dishonest. christianity does not have a monopoly on: Honor your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet. rejecting the a god does not discredit these very easily derived concepts.
Even though I went to one of the best high schools at the time, we did not learn the Socratic method. It would be useful if you could do another article, demonstrating with actual dialogue between 2 people. Even using current topics, or maybe that would muddy the waters. Maybe non-current topics would be more instructive. David Bohm’s book, “On Dialogue” is a useful related book for this topic.
I wonder if I am real. Well, the wondering is evidence. That is what I think therefore I am means. Everything else is up for debate, Descartes says. I told the truth publicly and people went crazy. It is too easy to unsettle the masses now. That is personal experience. Let them find it for themselves. Maybe, 500 more years.
Just as a thought to your statement about Dunning-Kruger-effect (DKE) and who it is applicable. The DKE can happen to everybody, not just to people of low intelligence! Everybody knows about something and may have a deep knowledge about a number of things, but nobody knows everything about everything -that is where we start. Giving this fact, it is easy to underestimate a subject matter and then you have people claiming they are experts due to “Google-University” believing to have an expert equivalent knowledge due to random searches on the internet. And even smart/intelligent people tend to overreach – as they have a good grasp of a subject and find their way around quite quickly. This gives themselves the impression that they know a “good deal” on the matter – while in reality and unbeknownst to themselves they are barely scratching the surface. An excellent analogy is the “bar-scene” in the movie Good Will Hunting, where Will Hinting schools the university student (likely a smart and intelligent dude), about what the student knows, when and why – making a display of the DKE-trap this student has fallen into. The other thing that we see in our society is a “reverse”-DKE, that people believe that if somebody is very good at one thing (i.e. sports, arts, economy, business, medicine, etc.), he must have an opinion or a solid knowledge about everything else either in the same or in other fields, what honestly cannot be the case but still is expected. A good example for reverse DKE and DKE is the fanbase of D.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 🧠 Socrates’ Philosophy Foundation – Socrates’ belief in the importance of questioning wisdom and knowledge. – The origin of the Socratic method as a form of cooperative dialogue. – Plato’s role in preserving and promoting Socrates’ philosophical legacy. 01:10 🌍 The Socratic Method in Dialogue – How the Socratic method challenges faulty definitions and presuppositions. – Its role in promoting critical thinking and pursuing truth cautiously. – Comparison of the Socratic method with modern communication challenges. 03:00 🗣️ Socratic Method in Public Discourse – Addressing polarization in political and cultural discourse. – The method’s potential to improve public dialogue and discourse quality. – Contrast between the Socratic approach and contemporary social media dynamics. 04:21 🕊️ Socratic Inquiry and Self-Reflection – Using the Socratic method for self-examination and uncovering personal beliefs. – Importance of questioning one’s own assumptions and beliefs. – Socrates’ influence on the concept of “know thyself” and its application. 06:41 📚 Plato’s Dialogues and Philosophical Inquiry – Examples from Plato’s dialogues illustrating the Socratic method in action. – Analysis of dialogues like the Lysis to understand philosophical concepts. – How Plato uses Socrates to challenge and refine definitions and ideas. 08:19 🤔 Questioning Your Own Beliefs – Techniques for applying the Socratic method to personal beliefs.
I feel like I unwittingly, or rather unintentionally, fell into the Socratic method over time naturally. The pursuit of knowledge seems to be never ending, which is both refreshing and convoluting. I’ve learned though, when you apply this to yourself and those whom you’re conversing with there really is no debate to be had; if you are open to change it opens the door for others to examine themselves for changes. Or maybe I’m not Socratic at all; I’ll have to ponder on it. 🙃
The opening to this article demonstrates exactly what Socrates was arguing against. He (Plato’s Socrates) actually said (in Plato’s reconstruction of Socrates’ trial, in the Apologia) not that all he knows is that he knows nothing, which is an acceptance of an extreme form of ignorance, not skepticism, but “I do not think that I know that which I do not know”, which is another way of saying that he knows his limits. He may be an expert in one or more fields, but this does not mean that he’s an expert in all fields. Similarly, you may be an expert in some fields, but certainly not in the presentation of Plato’s dialogues.
THANK YOU for posting. May I just add….The inscription “man know thy self” was, in fact, copied from the ancient Egyptian temples of learning. Socrates sentenced to death for teaching a FOREIGN doctrine!!! Ever questioned whence the doctrines ORIGINATED? Moreover, the term ‘Greek philosophy’ is a misnomer….” George GM James. Correct me if I’m wrong. Kind regards.
Emotions override facts. That is today’s view of accepted behavior. When I tell people that homosexuality, transgender behavior, sexual perversion, and pedophilia all come from childhood sexual abuse, I am told it is not true. Yet, for like 20 years, I have asked homosexual individuals if they were sexually abused as a child, and all but 2 individuals say yes. When I say gay/trans comes from sexual abuse as a child, people use what I call “Emotional Override” to refute it, but not facts. I have found this to be a pattern in most controversial subjects – like evolution. No facts, just emotional defence. 😮
Sad thing is, I’ve been in my life trying to get people into philosophy because the way they treat these bad things aka ignorance, arrogance etc are very rewarded. And so far one person has done so, and it improved his life and mental health, and even offered to help if i wanted to create a society of that nature.. I don’t think we’ll get big enough, the fact that only one person is kinda saddening to me
Sadly the tiny percentage of individuals that can appreciate this article is not enough to save humanity. Over all recorded history humans have and always will act the same, we just make better weapons. I have told friends this is ‘the great filter’. Any civilization that evolves the human style of consciousness will ultimately destroy itself. Of course we can’t imagine a better form of consciousness since we only have one example.
I am amazed by how much of what Socrates had to say 2,500 years ago is recognized and addressed in ‘good system design practices’ for high tech medical systems. The ‘wisdom’ to produce a serviceable design is absent at the beginning of the R&D phase and present the end. Few first tries at designs work. They all require debugging. The absent wisdom emerges from “Try. Fail. Try again. Fail better.’ And, ‘try, try again’ until success, the money runs out, or it becomes clear it is impossible. (See SpaceX). Good design practices evolved to avoid the most common human errors encountered in such work e.g. where common sense and sensibilities don’t work. As you can imagine there is zero tolerance for each Designer to not use tried and true means to acquire the wisdom absent at the beginning as quickly as possible. That entails ready acceptance of inconvenient truths as they make themselves known as in, “Damn. That makes it a lot harder.”
Well done, though the narration often emphasizes the less meaningful words or de-emphasizes the most salient ones, especially in comparison s – and this confuses the meaning for viewers. My suggestion for the future would be to underline the words that when emphasized, convey meaning g most clearly, and place passes strategically.
great gratitudes, compelling words from and for a different capacity. A culturally developed insight is very different for comparison from a modern perspective. There’s so much missing from our modern view that was culturally aware of for Socrates time for thousands of years, like the library of Alexandria, but certainly not ONLY, nor its primary. There are fundamental principles that are lacking in our modern cultures, like the “right of passage” referring to adulthood, not the ceremony, the context and content of principles of self empowerment, which is the meaning of an adult Consciousness, the self power to fulfill ideas in Life, form. Most would only be guessing at what the principles of self empowerment are, the verb here being guessing, not knowing, even the fundamentals required for societal life, hence the ongoing indifference to our worlds annihilation. my point here is that this level of discourse serves a very limited application to address our present indifference. Maturing is the act of evolution, and we have had the story of that maturing evolution stolen from us in modern society, and in Socrates time it was much more common sense culturally throughout ancient texts, older than the roman(catholic) empire, but it is much older, this is the point where the successful initiation of the stealing of history, starting with the Druids in the north, followed by the Gnostics in the south. The north because of it’s closer proximity to the source of tis knowledge and wisdoms, which was Atlantis, but not the only, as Atlantis was a soft invasion, just as humans were a soft invasion 50 thousand years prior to Atlantis, for different reasons, and others.
So validly on point and, I loved that Kierkegaard quote as your summary ending. Great article and, I encourage any and all of us with the awareness of these ideas to write in an articulate dignified manner comments that introduce Socratic thinking into discourse where high engagement exists. Not simply in and amongst these academic and philosophical subjects and content creations but, more importantly wherever you encounter high traffic or heavy engagement. Especially engage where passions are fueling the wildfire of zealotry which has a gravitational effect pulling all but the heaviest masses into their oft fatal conceits and ignoble impulses. I do this randomly on or in the worlds of strangers. I will engage in this manner on Marvel movie discussions. I have not ever watched a single one of those films. I will dialogue with rabid sports fans or comedian websites. It’s quite a thing! I lack the words for what you might call this guerilla style kinectic cognitive infection. YouTube I have decided is where you can get your best advertising for this desperately needed lesson. It isn’t as tribal as the other platforms and also not anonymous where others tend toward but, it’s untethered from algorithmic opinion echo chambers that the very choice to engage with all the variables from topic, to people, to the particulars, are the very bricks these talks are walled off from letting others enter into and take part amongst for the mere fact that they’re essentially unknown and undiscoverable.
First Principle q-a, define what you think you mean by a god (other than a human), how you attach any label to undefinable functional behaviors and why you are entitled to do/say you have specific qualifications transferable to others. If this is “corrupting youth” because it indicates the fact of “I know nothing” as symbolic positioning in an eternal absence, it’s an admission of eternal disembodiment and the implication of “soul” as the universe in Totality.
It’s sad that the word manifesto has come to have such negative connotations. It would be a great project for everyone entering or graduating high school to undertake. It would be much easier than to live in accordance with one’s beliefs when one has written them down, thought them out, and either refined or defended them against the beliefs of others
Following this sort of process through takes time and effort. Many people are very occupied and don’t have the time or mental fortitude to sit there and analyse a topic with someone else. I remember doing this sort of discussion from time to time in college years, but now as an adult there just isn’t enough time or energy to really drill too deep into a topic especially with someone else.
I’ve always been introspective and questioned everything (at no pleasure for anyone “leading” me), so I wonder if this is actually a baked-in personality trait rather than something we’re missing in the culturescape. What if these media formats are best used by the types of people that created them, destructive for the opposite type, and neutral at best for everyone else?
Media discourse, uploaded opinions and viral debates are stimulants to our instincts. ANY environment creates a list of stimulus. Our survival instincts kickback when we feel controlled by the asymmetric parasocial speaker-listener relationship. Despite being aware of the psychology of various categories of a demographic we are linking our legal and emotional presence in a given digital environment. We fail to measure the cultural relevance of an argument, debate or topic in favor of being personally relevant. Social media is a proven validator via engagement while completely discounting the nuanced metrics to any process of validation. It is us who are the real fools engaging in parasocial bluffs marked solely by an audience ignorant of their own contribution.
The “Truth” shall set you free, and then you will be able to rightly judge ALL THINGS! But one essential characteristic of “Truth” is that it is singular. There is only one ultimate source of Truth! But wide is the road on the journey of never ending evaluation, and re-evaluation, as though the Truth cannot be known. But narrow is the Gate to find the Truth and few are those who find it. But if you do, in the end, “you will know all things just as you will be fully known”.
Plato’s ideal state features philosopher-kings or guardians who possess wisdom and virtue. In contrast, modern democracies elect leaders through popular vote, often based on charisma, political campaigns, and party affiliations. Plato criticizes democracy for its susceptibility to demagoguery and the rule of the unqualified. He believes that democracy can devolve into anarchy or tyranny. Plato’s state emphasizes justice and the common good over individual desires. Citizens have specific roles assigned based on their abilities, while modern governments strive for equality, human rights, and social justice. However, achieving these goals remains an ongoing struggle. “Equality” is a concept, alone. It strips people of their strengths and unique characteristics, rather than celebrate and promote them. It is in point, exactly as most feared by Plato, democracy devolving into tyranny.
Unfortunately I think evil people had recognized how they must keep people ignorant down to a science. Once that becomes organized, preserved and fortified by keepers of the highest positions of government for generations, it’s kind of too late. Different story: I decided one day to try a new technique against my ignorant friend who I frequently debate with. Truth and consideration were not working on him. So I tried something I would not stoop to but something he used frequently and was used by his sources frequently: ridicule. I tried ridicule and it was amazingly effective on him in debate. Instantly and utterly effective. It didn’t matter if I was right or wrong. That was very disappointing but also eye-opening. I realized I cannot convince anyone of anything who ultimately will reject the truth. The tricky part is everyone says they want the truth. For half of people that is a lie. I’ll leave it to you if you think it’s worth finding out which side an incorrect person is on: being deceived or deceiving.
you gotta wonder about The Oracle, based on what little we ‘know’. what was going on back then? have we lost something? thanks for pointing out some new philosophers i need to check out. lessons of life of Socrates definitely helped me when i first encountered them. there was somethi g almost magical happening in Athens during a certain period, but perhaps these inheritances (incl the Mysteries) are the things that stand the test of “Time”
The ultimate aim of Socrates’ philosophical method is always ethical. Socrates believed that if one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good. Thus if one truly understands the meaning of courage, self-control, or justice, one will act in a courageous, self-controlled and just manner. So why is the socratic method not taught in schools? Without the ability to question oneself one’s own beliefs and motivations, we remain ignorant. Ignorance is the worst disease in any society as it allows the instruments of government, i.e. our politicians, to act unethically and renders them and the people who elected them into office unable to see it.
While I would agree that the Socratic method is diametrically opposed to the typical Social Media discourse, I wonder if it is possible to engage any such peoples in the thought experiment required. It requires that people modify their ingrained habits, which is hard to do. To put it in a humorous way: You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think. More will be revealed… in its own time
May seem unrelated but I have to say that, to me, the problem with dialogue, or as you so elequently put it, “the socratic method”, is that it only works if “the other side is willing to listen to what you have to say OR believes that there is a REASON as to why they should”. Not to mention that there is a difference between someone actually being willing to LISTEN to what you have to say, instead of just simply “letting you speak”, for the sake of political correctness and public opinion perception and what not… Edit: Needless to say this is supposed to work both ways… if you want some1 to be willing to listen to you, you need to be willing to listen to some1…
The complexity of the modern world, combined with the deception in our information sources makes it impossible to rely on logic alone. It’s simply not possible when almost every datum is contested so people have to make educated guesses which are prone to bias and personal preference. Plus most people are using personal aesthetics (I just don’t like the guy) to make decisions which should be logic based.
The more I have tested my beliefs and intellect, the more I have come to know peace within myself. The “Knowing” of things seems popular these days. However, the sources are tainted with a bias and viewpoint everywhere you seek knowledge. Judgement is also popular. Now it can be said it always has, but from what I can see it is a de facto way of dealing with an unknown individual without exception. I myself look like I might be left leaning. Long hair kinda hippyish. And in fact I have been judged that way more often than not. I am as conservative as one might be. But not in a traditional sense. Because of this I have been privy to many a liberal conversation. I generally keep my mouth shut and listen. Those exchanges range from the mundane to the extreme. Often with others looking to me for my approval. When it is not expressly given the jig is often up. I have heard harrowing things from the mouths of those who on the outside you may “judge” as either competent or learned. Those tend to be the ones who offer the most extreme views on a seemingly endless range of topics. It is as if they know it all. Once I realized how little I knew regardless of how read I may be. The more I realized how little others seemed to grasp.
Howdy hi hi, Concerning social media, I think you’ve misjudged the core reasoning behind the vitriol present on these platforms. I would submit, that communicating via the written word is a skill too many neglect. As such it become easy to misinterpret meanings. Also, lacking both vocal and facial cues. Not to mention body language, these platforms generate a kind of false narcissism because the normal pathway via mirror neurons sending emotional feedback through the cognitive centers to the HPA axis contains only the writers emotional context save for what can be gleaned through the aforementioned writing. As such, in order to elicit an emotional response, which is an element all mammals require in social interactions, vitriol has become the path of least resistance. Concerning the nature of “good and evil”. Most people are unaware of the definition of these terms as set out in secular terms. That which is good is that which is consistent with human nature. That which is evil is that which is inconsistent with human nature. The begs the question: “What is human nature?” I would submit that human nature and mammalian nature of equivalent. Being that we are of course mammalian. From a behavioral standpoint, mammalian behavior stems from a kind a universal affective (emotional) empathy. Or in more simple terms. When we interact with others. Autonomic systems make us tend toward reaching a balance with those we interact with. Or we take on mirrored emotional states. And in so doing, reap a reward in the form of endorphins.
Being now in my 70’s of lifelong learning, experience, observation, creativity, understanding, re-examination 24/7 365. Another Socrates of, either gender, in these turbulent days would not last as long as the first…..I wouldn’t give them any hope in living in the public eye with a Socratic demeanour, they would be isolated and even murdered……sadly
The slides in this article ought to be the Terms & Conditions to social media sties – not that people are perfect nor agree – just to consider it at the least. This is a mic-drop to all the idiotic arguments I read from different “sides” lol. Edit : learn about the “Steel-man” method, i.e. know the strongest arguments on the other side.
I personally want to understand. Knowledge is good, but knowledge without understanding is like asking a book on Engineering to design something new. Einstein is credited as having once said that “imagination is more important than knowledge”, and that makes sense to me. I am convinced that knowledge and understanding are only just the engine, imagination is the rudder, guiding the seeker into a new light. No?
Ok hold on. People aren’t agreeing because they’ve never agreed or been happy with the situation. It’s just that now, allllll the groups that have been ostracized, beat down, and humiliated can actually band together and stand up for themselves. Instead of keeping quiet out of fear, alone. You’re overthinking this by a lot.
Proverbs 26:4-5 KJV “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” Proverbs 29:11 KJV “A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.” Proverbs 14:7 KJV “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Proverbs 18:2 KJV “A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.” Jeremiah 17:9 KJV “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” What these Bible verses break down into. Either walk away from a fool, and do not answer him. If you do answer him, answer it according to his own stupidity. You’ll know a fool by the fact he keeps yapping nonsense, usually about himself. And a fool, also, does not take delight in understanding things, but instead following what’s true to his heart, that his heart may discover himself. Jeremiah 17:9 warns, therefore, that the heart is the most deceitful thing, and not many can know it. Yeah, the lies of Satan are bad, and the lies of Man are equally bad: but the worst lies are the ones you tell yourself.
We don’t really know what Socrates believed or said. Nearly all we have is from Plato, and he was a mystic who used Socrates name to promote his own unproven assertions. For instance, he couldn’t accept that most people were right handed and attributed this to nursing mothers preferring one side or another. So we should be careful at attributing beliefs to Socrates. His method of questioning is definitely his own, as we have a second source, Xenophon, who wrote how Socrates destroyed his opponent’d argument through questioning.
That one bit got me confused… “Being an atheist while accepting a Christian morality” What does that mean? Does it suggest that Christianity invented being nice to people? Because I’m sure it didn’t. Further, atheism is unbelief in a god and is concerned only with the question of whether a God exists or not.
Woah woah I gotta stop right from the get-go. You’re saying “An immature intelligence is one who has not thought to question beliefs until they are questioned by others. Then, they will try to prove it in any way possible.” To that, I would have to ask, is that truly the only reason for such behavior? Because accepting this without holding this belief to its own regards seems to be the ultimate in immature thinking.
The problem is that the masses are not under their own self control. From birth we are programmed to rely on tradition and regurgitated information without being afforded the opportunity to understand the true self and translate the experience of life in our own way. Like snowflakes, We are all the same, yet different. We must be allowed to express our true selves out of love for our selves and our experience. The greatest people in history have been afforded this luxury. The masses are not so lucky. The controllers are much too strong. We must rectify our systems and implement a propper schooling system. It all starts in the developmental years of our lives. Our schools do not propagate self-realization and a true connection to our reality.
open and honest conversation is seemingly not possible. there are people that are stuck in archaic beliefs. beliefs that make them the main character in the story and to hell with the outsiders. mostly stuck in top down authority structures that do not accept questions thought do not fit the narrative. then there is a group that is grounded in science and socially derived moral concepts. these systems accept questions and encourage skepticism. but evidence and logic is then applied to the derived answers. and of course most people are culturally brought up in whichever world with no serious thought to the opposite. they just go with what they were raised with because it is the easiest path. these are the people that “just react” . re: concepts yup, this is why i try to apply positive nihilism to most things. start from the position that every concept is intrinsically meaningless. their was no universal evil or good that the concept derived from. instead, that the concepts were developed by humans. humans have interest in the concept. tease out the inside and outside parties, where the money comes from, and how the concepts plugs into other concepts from the past and how it would plug into the future… then you can start understanding if the concept is worth its salt
That statement about, if one is an atheist then one must reject christian morals. Just what do you mean by that? That one must not ‘obey the word of God’ or that one must not care for others? There are many so called christian morals that are based on simple ideas that stem from either past pre Judo-christian religions, and either way are perfectly sound in a secular rational. Thou shall not kill is not a christian moral as much as a civilised way to live. I dont not kill because the christian god told ne not to, but because i find it abhorrent. So the only thing i can see that would or should be rejected by someone because they are an atheist is only the idea of a god or the following of ‘morals’ that only exist because of a god. Otherwise, that statement is stupid, akin to theist who state that atheists are wicked because they are without god
I wonder, since many of the foundations of Christianity and it’s morality are born of prior belief systems and philosophies, would not another evole as Christianity and it’s forebares has? …also, isn’t atheism relative? If a false God is no God at all or merely man enhanced or concept denied, isn’t disbelief in that being as such atheistic?
For a article covering the Socratic Method, there are a lot of claims and assumptions here. What do you mean we’re not taught to think? Don’t you think you should back up such an all-encompassing statement? Don’t you see that society is more open to discourse than it has ever been, in the history of the world? We’ve got countries that recognize individual rights and endeavor to create educated citizens instead of keeping them subjugated. The places where a person can be killed for their beliefs are fewer than ever before. And uh, what’s all this stuff about God? God is actually one of the most popular reasons for denying people their rights. It’s giving “arrogant” and not “intellectual humility”.
Great article, let’s hope this ancient thinking takes over the current no thinking. It’s an incredibly bizarre upside down world in its current state, DEI is considered more reliable than actual competence. Professors can’t define a woman, and that is even professors who are women. With all of that said, I will add, in my experience, I have found that life is like a washing machine, it has an agitator in order to remove the impurities from our core. The agitator is anything that causes agitation, so the current upside down world, which has thrown out rational decision making and behaviour is simply an agitator created by “god” for want of a better word, to help us evolve toward the spiritual. In the transcendental state of samadhi, where “you” lose body consciousness but remain fully aware as the body goes about it’s predetermined activities, you as that awareness are beyond space and time, completely neutral, non reactive, content but don’t know you are content, you see, in this state you know nothing, there is no things, there is only that awareness, which we all are once the impurities have been agitated from our core.
I don’t know who Socrates reminds me of, but I’m sure it was somebody pathetic. Ever since I was a little kid I’ve always questioned everything, and isn’t that the first principle—the practice of questioning everything you think you know. But for him to admit he knows nothing, is just trying a little too hard ¿`_
The Socratic method will do nothing of worth in an era filled with ideology and people who do not think before they talk or act. All it will accomplish is increasing the rate that echo chambers form, and the strength of their cohesion, because almost nobody in the post-modern era cares about truth enough to ask disillusioning questions or give controversial answers. We do not face a problem of dialog, but instead one of desire.
“Religious Thinking” is a way of thinking in which abstract concepts take precedence over objective reality. When defined this way (which is the same way Noam Chomsky defines the term), it reveals the the mystic religions are actually a small subset of all religions. Religious thinking is both a strength and a weakness for humans. Its strength is that it enables (some) humans to learn something that they may have no actual experience of. For example: a Chemical Engineer or a Medical Doctor, on completion of their degrees, know their subject in a religious way, they need to undergo a traineeship or internship in order to transform their abstract knowledge of their field into a practical understanding. The traditional mystic (or social) religions serve a very important social role. The more incredulous they are, the better they are for choosing which individuals can be trusted to place the interests of the society or more often, the interests of their rulers over their own interests (or even well being). It is clear (to me) that it is not only the mystic religions that feature incredulous aspects. The modern “Progressive Left” feature many incredulous ideas. The Social religions also serve a role of providing a limit to activities that are deleterious to social harmony and the long term resource base for society.
You are confusing dogma with Theism. The Socratic method disproves Atheism not Theism. As Carl Jung pointed out: “An atheist is a negative theist; naturally he would not deny a thing if he did not think it was there to be denied. He would not add the a. It is an admission of God when you call yourself an atheist, because whether you assert a thing or deny it, you confirm that it is: you cannot deny a thing without giving it a certain existence. It does exist somewhere even if you assume that it exists only in the minds of other people; that it exists in the minds of other people means that it does exist.” As you pointed out Socrates placed a special value on ideas.
The Cult of Socrates thing has to end. Read “The Trial of Socrates” by the distinguished and revered independent journalist, I. F. Stone. Socrates was the brown-nosing sycophant of the Athenian aristocrats. He, like the aristocrats, despised the common people and rejected democracy. He believed, as did the aristocrats, that the aristocrats had the “natural” right to be the sole rulers of Athens. All of his acolytes were aristocrats and his assertion of the “natural” rule of aristocracy reinforced the bigotry of those of his acolytes who joined other aristocrats in the fascistic coup d’état known as the Thirty Tyrants. Critias, who was among the acolyte-hosts of the lah-dee-dah dinner parties that Socrates had so enjoyed, was in the leadership of the Thirty Tyrants. The reign of terror executed by the Thirty Tyrants so traumatized the Athenian people that when the Tyrants were deposed, they arrested Socrates for his role in it. Socrates was so ashamed of himself that he used the death sentence as a convenient means of suicide. Suicide. He had every opportunity to escape to a comfortable exile, but he PREFERRED to die. (The story of Socrates preferring to submit to the rule of law is his phony window-dressing, consistent with his mediocre personality.)
To make the Socratic method work you must question people who respect, or at least have the potential to respect, reason. It’s reason that is missing from modern discourse, and it will take at least a generation to cure given the right circumstances. Currently, the circumstances are as far from “right” as they can be. Children are left alone to teach themselves…the ignorant seeking knowledge where they can find it. The problem with this is technology itself; it allows people to change what is being shown through filters or other methods of distortion (Photoshop, AI, etc.). Just as some fallacies (thinking errors) are deliberate and therefore dishonest, the use of technology to distort what is seen and heard is dishonest. A child will not be able to understand the difference until they are taught the difference. Teach your children, folks…teach your children the difference between good and bad thinking. We can ask and answer questions all day, but without knowing good from bad thinking, all that is accomplished is wasted time.
This entire conversation and topic is ignoring the real problem with current-era social media discourse: defining stupidity. Everyone would be well served by reading Carlo M. Cipolla’s commentary and observations regarding the rules of human stupidity (it’s tragically funny and accurate). The democratization of discourse has, unfortunately, had an amplifying impact of stupid, loud, emotionally driven opinions and agenda. Asking the mass of stupidity (which Cipolla points out repeatedly, is always underestimated) to consider the Socratic Method or employ introspection, is akin to asking a Golden Retriever to outline the computation of dot products. We’ve put the most powerful technological communication tools ever conceived in the hands of complete idiots. Our optimistic belief that these tools would make the stupid smart came from a fundamentally incorrect understanding of stupidity. We thought stupidity was a result of ignorance, “low IQ”, race or social position. But Cipolla’s far more accurate appraisal that stupid people can be highly educated, high-IQ, from any background; and the smart often do not fit our credentialist, academic notions of intelligence, begins to explain why in an age of supposed enlightenment, technology and liberty, we’re suddenly regressing at a frightening rate. As they say in the military: “you can’t fix stupid”.
Ok, how do you mean when you say “people CALL themselves atheist while accepting a Xtian morality?” How completely does one have to align their ethics with “Xtian morality” before, by your standard, they’re “accepting a Xtian morality?” You CAN believe it’s wrong to lie as a matter of course, along with believing it’s wrong to kill, commit adultery to the extent that you yourself betray a trust and/or aid another in betraying a trust, or steal, without that code of personal ethic being because you believe your SkyDaddy is going to call you to account in some afterwards to life. We are a social species, and cooperation pretty much depends on being able to trust one another’s motivations. Honesty to whatever degree it should matter in a particular situation, respect of other’s life, property, or even feelings, ALL depend on a supposition, if you will, that as a species we can have that expectation of one another. If not, we would NOT be successful as a species.
11:41 you say that one cannot be an atheist if that person also believes in “Christian morality,” because Nietzsche said that Christian morals cannot be separated from their God. In the spirit of this article, that seems to assume that Nietzsche’s assertion has already been subjected to the Socratic method and therefore must be true – I’m not sure I agree with that assertion. Morality can coexist within the constructs of religion and a deity, but it can also exist outside of it. What even are “Christian morals” (it’s been debated ad nauseum for 2 millenia with no clear consensus) and what makes them exclusively Christian? Assuming we could agree on a certain moral principle as being incontrovertible and fundamental to Christianity, how can we say for certain that it was a novel concept that originated from Christianity? If we cannot definitively tie a moral’s origin as being ordained from God or as having come from a specific religion, then we cannot say that an atheist is at odds with their lack of belief in that God while co-opting said moral.
Intelligence and stupidity are cyclical and synonymous, and all of us are fanatics. Your sight of the vices being beneath your demigod hood is evidence of your foolishness, on the contrary does a good vice not anchor things in place, say, your fortitude. 😂 The Jesters role is to realign the sight of the arrogant Gods. Our singular “truths” create this season of War, in their psuedo sentient manner ideas battle for salience. Realize all expressions are scared children, screaming for their right to life. I venerate your pain, sleep tight sweet babes. Find good humour in this and your intillect will thrive.
You had me up until you said that as an atheist I have to not use the morals of Christianity. What do you mean? Are the morals of Christianity strictly only Christian? Are they not universal morals? If this is your claim, did Christianity invent morals? Perhaps I just don’t understand your meaning. atheism isn’t a set of beliefs, morals are all subjective to the individual, and just because one doesn’t believe that a God exists doesn’t mean they aren’t decent people. Again perhaps I misunderstood
How is it that the Greeks of yore were so beautifully housed? It appears in paintings that they lived in ornate splendor, as opposed to our “Richest Nation in History”, where we live in relative stick-built shacks, compared to the ancients. I never get answers to these type questions. I wonder why that is.
here I gives you a journey of fool for years follow hindu gods nothing miraculous happened tried Jesus nothing miraculous happened wanted to try Islam but certain principles were difficult to comply so skipped tried few more moderately nothing worked then I came across a saint neeb karoli baba or maharaj ji all miracles worked although the path was difficult I agree it took several years but when it works, it works for sure. you see the real miracle that one expect from priest, or pastor or pope or from imam but never got.
No… the Socratic Method is… challenge the arguer, and not the argument. In another words… you don’t beat their argument; you try to beat them as a person or their rationale… that is what is questioned. The Socratic method is not an honorable strategy, but a tactic used by cowards and the intellectually inferior, who know they have a weak counterargument, and try to discredit their opponent, and believe if they beat them, they beat their argument. If you don’t believe me… politicians have been using the Socratic Method against other politicians and voters for centuries.
The goal of all goals is for the individual to complete the process of the fear of God and for you woke ppl it’s the process of disappointing the Creator. Completing the process will make you trustworthy to receive spiritual gifts to assist the world and the ppl in it. Not completing the process makes you useless to the Most High God after all God’s elect One his treasure is in the fear of God and when you’re the first to do it the world will count you out except for his praise doesn’t come from man his praise comes from God Himself. All eyes on the city of Los Angeles where the process of the fear of God has been completed and gamed so it doesn’t matter if you don’t notice a man in the making 👑.
The most profound question of the age that has emerged is the nature of the realm itself. A serious question concerning the validity of the current modern cosmology of mankind is now raised. Do we exist on a sphere travelling through a dark endless void? What true evidence of physics exists for that claim? Since no man has seen a globe or been to space it must be taken as a false claim. Earth lays level, horizontally extended, and stationary. Thinkers must consider this now.
Do I need proof for the following: absolute nothing can’t ever create something, therefore 1) something is eternal Because 2) absolute nothing is impossible (Im mathematicals, true vacuums is impossible) If something is eternal, then with it, wouldn’t it make it easier to have an order older than the universe, that has transcended their mortal form🤔 I know it’s not proof, but out of infinite time in the past, by resetting the universal timeline (the only real “0” possible). Soooo because something is eternal, it means that there is a surviving order beyond our universe. No proof, except it’s self evident… Right? Now I know believers in the bible will want to step in to say that they were always right all along, they must be reminded that we’re it would be under the new testament rules, Like help the least among us (children/poor) and be forgiving (even to prostitutes), also Do what will be done back to you…. Right?
Think about how the post modern French Intellectuals knew all described in article, of the Socratic method. These post modernists rejected knowledge and consistency of the Socratic method as the goal. Post modernists goal is power. All means to power is real, truth and consistency are tools to power used when furthering power, rejected when not furthering power. Marxist Leninism is an example of anti Socratic method. American Progressives are also anti Socratic method. What is the meaning then of “an unexamined life is not worth living”, Marxists and Progressive would find the statement absurd. Not confronting the Marxists and Progressives due to Socratic doubt continuously threatens the demise of Western Civilization.
Thumbs down. You were doing well until you got to the point about atheism and Christianity. It is absolutely reasonable to be an atheist and yet adhere to what is generally known as Judeo-Christian morality because there are real world reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with a belief in God. Conservative values, that are frequently referred to as Judeo-Christian, represent the set of best business practices for the business of living whether God exists or not. Anyone who loves life and is interested in the survival of mankind, if he or she have ever taken the time to think think things through, should come to the understanding that honesty, respect, capitalism, traditional family values, sexual restraint, taking responsibility for one’s own actions, honoring one’s commitments, and generally living by the Golden Rule, as well as other values that are associated with Western Monotheism, produce results that are conducive to health, happiness, and prosperity – whereas progressive and narcissistic values do just the opposite. You have gone and done the exact thing that you were trying to warn others against doing. You have blindly quoted things that other’s have said, without stopping to think them through. Why? Has your admiration for those individuals shielded you from the possibility that they may occasionally be wrong? Have your own personal biases gotten in the way of your critical thinking? Many times I have heard the assertion that without a belief in God Christian values make no sense, but never once has anyone making that claim bothered to offer a coherent explanation as to why it is so.
as an atheist, i question the claims of religious people. usually my questions are, how do you know that, and how can i know this? oh, read a book? which one? yours? why yours over the couple 100 over there that all say you are wrong and they are right. it’s based on a feeling? how can we trust that feeling? can feelings be wrong? what’s this about faith? what is faith and how can i use it? can i use faith to believe in the force? if i can use faith to believe in anything i want, like the force, then what good is it on finding truth? to me, religion is nothing but a security blanket and holy books are as historically accurate as marvel comics.
“many people call themselves atheists while accepting a Christian morality if you reject the Christian God that discredits the whole thing”. Please define Atheism and Christian morality? Can these Christian moralities exist or did they exist independent of the young christian religion? Are you a Christian and If so, why are you a christian?