Nietzsche, Marx, Freud & Darwin

[Profpat]

'' When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion. ''


Quotes for Folks......


'' 
Feelings are much like waves, we can't stop them from coming but we can choose which one to surf. ''

Thanks Mom, but I call them as I see them. Besides Llpoyd want's to be a creature of logic and not emotion.

Best to you Mel,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thanks Mom, but I call them as I see them. Besides Llpoyd want's to be a creature of logic and not emotion.

Best to you Mel, Pat

No dear, I'm a creature of both, but sensible enough to avoid emotion, except in the bedroom, where it belongs...
__________________________________________________ _________________________

RP, Einstein most likely never made it to the top of the list, due to the fact that a 'Power Hungry' nation like America didn't like pacifists or anit-secularists like him... Here's some of the reasons for Einstein's misfortunes, along with QM being the dominant physics...

How, much of secularism, thinks and plots:

Religion
Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives. It states that gods, matter, and souls are all made up of atoms. Souls are made from atoms, and gods possess souls, but their souls adhere to their bodies without escaping. Humans have the same kind of souls, but the forces binding human atoms together do not hold the soul forever. The Epicureans also used the atomist theories of Democritus and Leucippus to assert that man has free will. They held that all thoughts are merely atoms swerving randomly. This explanation served to satisfy people who wondered anxiously about their role in the universe.
The Riddle of Epicurus, or Problem of evil, is a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods. As recorded by Lactantius:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak - and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful - which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?
—[1]

This type of trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist.[2] According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean.[3] The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.[4]
Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. This was not because they were malevolent, but because they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state everyone should strive to emulate; it is not the gods who are upset by evils, but people.[2] Epicurus conceived the gods as blissful and immortal yet material beings made of atoms inhabiting the metakosmia: empty spaces between worlds in the vastness of infinite space. In spite of his recognition of the gods, the practical effect of this materialistic explanation of the gods' existence and their complete non-intervention in human affairs renders his philosophy akin in divine effects to the attitude of Deism.
In Dante's Divine Comedy, the flaming tombs of the Epicureans are located within the sixth circle of hell (Inferno, Canto X). They are the first heretics seen and appear to represent the ultimate, if not quintessential, heresy.[5] Similarly, according to Jewish Mishnah, Epicureans (apiqorsim, people who share the beliefs of the movement) are among the people who do not have a share of the "World-to-Come" (afterlife or the world of the Messianic era).
Parallels may be drawn to Buddhism, which similarly emphasizes a lack of divine interference and aspects of its atomism. Buddhism also resembles Epicureanism in its temperateness, including the belief that great excesses lead to great dissatisfaction.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

These arguments all go back to Democritus, considered the father of modern science, who was Epicurus hero__Einstein didn't fit the secular mold__He wouldn't accept the old randomness and chance theories, i.e., "God doesn't play dice..."
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmokritos, "chosen of the people") (ca. 460 BCE – ca. 370 BCE) was an Ancient Greek philosopher born in Abdera, Thrace, Greece.[1] He was an influential pre-Socratic philosopher and pupil of Leucippus, who formulated an atomic theory for the cosmos.[2] Democritus is recognized as the earliest proponent of the concept of atomism.
His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts. Their speculation on atoms, taken from Leucippus, bears a passing and partial resemblance to the nineteenth-century understanding of atomic structure that has led some to regard Democritus as more of a scientist than other Greek philosophers; nevertheless their ideas rested on very different bases.[3] Largely ignored in Athens, Democritus was nevertheless well-known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle. Plato is said to have disliked him so much that he wished all his books burnt.[1] Many consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science".[4]

[RascalPuff]

Gentlemen:
As Greg has reminded all concerned persons, the initiator of each thread is also a potential arbiter along with the mods. It is disconcerting to see two seasoned people such as yourselves, Prof and Lloyd, at such extreme differences with each other. Disagreement, difference of opinions and argument is probably inevitable among forum members and participants; whereas, the hurling of equine road apples and the projection of pastoral pasture pies is beneath the much earned stature and esteem of each and both of you. Though there may be sides to be taken, I will not take sides in this matter, while I do request that you find less abrasive avenues of disagreement. That I know of, each of you is the rightful recipient of a well earned respect. It's a real disappointment to see you at such pronounced odds. Please consider the mediation value and of LW and Mel.

Dear Lloyd, thank you for your latest - on topic - entry. : )

Respectful best regards,
- RP

[melanie]

Lame, ain't ya Pat, that you can't even tell the difference between truth and lies...?

I have no interest in my or your emotions, Pat__Everybody's got that stupidity, equally...

Can the human mind exist without the artificial hierarchy that it imposes upon it's perceptions?

[labelwench]

Can the human mind exist without the artificial hierarchy that it imposes upon it's perceptions?

I'm wondering if the brain of an infant in the womb would satisfy as an answer, as there should be no artificial hierarchy, although I am hypothesizing perceptions?

Your thoughts?

[melanie]

I'm wondering if the brain of an infant in the womb would satisfy as an answer, as there should be no artificial hierarchy, although I am hypothesizing perceptions?

Your thoughts?

The quest is to be liberated from the negative, which is really our own will to nothingness.
And once having said yes to the instant, the affirmation is contagious.
It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit.
To say yes to one instant is to say yes to all of existence. -- Waking Life

-once you have awakened to this ''instance'' this ''immediacy'' this only moment-

''If you understand, things are just as they are... if you do not understand, things are just as they are.''

[Profpat]

Gentlemen:
As Greg has reminded all concerned persons, the initiator of each thread is also a potential arbiter along with the mods. It is disconcerting to see two seasoned people such as yourselves, Prof and Lloyd, at such extreme differences with each other. Disagreement, difference of opinions and argument is probably inevitable among forum members and participants; whereas, the hurling of equine road apples and the projection of pastoral pasture pies is beneath the much earned stature and esteem of each and both of you. Though there may be sides to be taken, I will not take sides in this matter, while I do request that you find less abrasive avenues of disagreement. That I know of, each of you is the rightful recipient of a well earned respect. It's a real disappointment to see you at such pronounced odds. Please consider the mediation value and of LW and Mel.

Dear Lloyd, thank you for your latest - on topic - entry. : )

Respectful best regards,
- RP

You do have a wonderful way with words RP. Thank you for your criticism.

Love and respect,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Post a fine lady's picture at this thread…

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...pleteness.html

…and all of cause, history, and the future will be revealed by me.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Illuminations—Illustrated Epics—
Kind of the New Scientific Romanticism

http://gallery.me.com/austintorney#101651

To see it as large as possible,
click ‘slideshow’ on the bottom left;
then you can pause it,
allowing time to view and read,
then go on to the next slide.

[austintorn@aol.com]

More Illuminations & Revelations here:

http://gallery.me.com/austintorney#1...lack&view=grid