Originally posted by Fugazzi:PS I m not holding a book and extracting and talking about the contents or quoting the book. I m holding/not holding onto antying, except that which is experiential in nature. It is an folly to confuse isms with isness.
In short, you are telling me that you CANNOT answer this few questions, book or no book?
1. What is existentialism?
2. Why existientialism?
3. How do we know that existentialism is true?
4. How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals?
Please confirm.
Originally posted by Fugazzi:When one’s mirror that is thick with the dust of the past (knowledge, traditions beliefs n isms), one cannot see clearly what is. One only sees what one wants to see, hence one misses! One cannot respond to what is. One merely reacts and all one does is use the past. Of course, the past is dead, it is only alive in the mind. The wise knows and accepts that the illusion of certainty cannot co-exist with existential uncertainty. At the most, one is clutching at straws of certainty! this seems to the predicament of yours whther u like it or not – why? there is no dignity to have the security of a graveyard, isms all ….
See? You are STILL not answering the following questions. Third time listing them.
1. What is existentialism?
2. Why existientialism?
3. How do we know that existentialism is true?
4. How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals?
Originally posted by Fugazzi:I have in many ways answered questions pertaining to being existential, existentializm i dont know and if u think that i dont know makes me stupid, it is fine. I dont need someone to pat me on the shoulders and say that I am ok, i m not ok. i will certainly fear that as long as i belong to a club.
I m not sheep, i dont borrow and copy paste to prop myself when i know all i can do is talk about what can be a expereince/non-experince
Fine, then don't borrow lor!
(but yet in the first place you must have borrowed the idea of existentialism and assimilated it into your thinking ya?)
Anyway, from YOUR own thinking please answer for the fourth time asking:
1. What is existentialism?
2. Why existientialism?
3. How do we know that existentialism is true?
4. How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:See? You are STILL not answering the following questions. Third time listing them.
1. What is existentialism?
2. Why existientialism?
3. How do we know that existentialism is true?
4. How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals?
is he your answering machine/fax
it is exactly the same as you are, avoiding and answer what you want to answer.
looks like you have a short memory on this.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:is he your answering machine/fax
it is exactly the same as you are, avoiding and answer what you want to answer.
looks like you have a short memory on this.
The difference is this, I have answered the questions that you or Tcmc has thrown at me, and my refusal to answer more questions is because neither you nor her has shown the intellectual integrity and nobility to interact with the answers given but yet want to ask more and more questions, and thus do not deserve to be given more answers. Fuzzi claimed to have answered my questions, but yet he cannot show me where the answers supposedly are. It's one thing to answer selectively, it's another to be UNABLE to answer but claimed to have already answered!
Originally posted by Fugazzi:I m not sheep, i dont borrow and copy paste to prop myself when i know all i can do is talk about what can be a expereince/non-experince , do i have to borrow an idea of … to appreciate the expereince of tasting, experience swimming in the sea. Does one have to think to exist? One can think n not think and still exist, is it not? Hence, let me repeat this for the last time lah, existential experience is DIFFERENT from existentialism.
Eg, my talking about the Bible, does not make me a Jesus, it will only give me a label, Christian . or .. it only makes me one when it is a living reality, a living experince.I m living christ, then it is true, add on … and would see the illusion and the sleepwalking.
Idiocy cannot get better than this. Self-honesty is freeing! Catch the drift?
The only driftI am catching is that you are drifting here and there but NOT answering my questions! May I ask if you have a prepared set of existential musings that you simply select, cut and paste to confuse and confound readers so as to appear deep and profound but in actual fact you have no substance or content one? Please spare us the existential mumbo jumbo and just answer the 4 questions, for the 5th time asking!
1. What is existentialism?
2. Why existientialism?
3. How do we know that existentialism is true?
4. How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals?
OK, let me spare you the embarassment. How about just answering the 4th question?
4. How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals?
Originally posted by Fugazzi:Bic
Muse over this
A man is at the bar n another man walks up to him n asks him, “Are you Ernie Smith?” The man says, ‘yes” The man then says, ‘Were you in Boston a few days ago?’ Ernie says, “Just a min,” n from his bag takes out a notebook, turns some pages, and then says, “Yes, I was a few days ago.” The man says, “Were you in rm 5?” Ernie looks into his notebook n says, “Yes.” The man says, “Did you meet Mrs.Dorothy in rm 6?” Ernie scans his eyes on his notebook n replies, “Yes.” The man says, “Tell me, did you make love to Mrs Dorothy?” Ernie looks into notebook again, says, “Yes, I made love to Mrs. Dorothy.” The man says, “Well, I’m Dorothy’s spouse n I don’t like it.” Again, Ernie looks in his notebook and utters, “You know, that’s funny. I didn’t like it either.”
This is what hearing is all about. One agrees perfectly, but one hears only what one wants to hear; one understands only what one wants to understand.
It is palpably evident that the above seems to be your predicament. You are free to spout all that comes to you – it is you and u are being u whatever u type here. To reject outrightly, what one knows not or lacks insight is the highest form of ignorance.
By judging another – u are not defining what another is (in this instance, me or ) . .. but defining what you are. The same goes for and each and everyone posting here. I have not excluded myself. It is only whether one accepts, pretends or simply ignores. However, it does not go away.
As for being misunderstood or not at, it is fine by me. I post to evoke ’’questions’’ and one is free to … one arrive at one’s ’’conclusion’’ or ’’views/opinions’’ – latter in quotes cos there are no absolutes, dead things are for absolutes – eg a bottle of wine, human beings either evolve or regress
Please explain how and why it is "evident" that I am in that predicament?
So when you judged my questioning of your beliefs as stupidity, what are you defining about yourself?
You said you post to evoke questions. Well, I evoked a series of questions for you, but you were unable to answer them, or refused to answer them. You simply ignores my questions, however they do not go away.
Originally posted by Fugazzi:Ps – I have in many ways answered questions pertaining to being existential, existentializm i DONT KNOW and if u think that i dont know n not knowing makes me stupid, it is fine. I dont need someone to pat me on the shoulders and say that I am ok, i m not ok. i will certainly fear that as long as i belong to a club.
Another eg, If one is being rude or kind or …, that can end or not end, it can change not change, that is being existential, one simply allows oneself to be … and is still partaking of what manifests as it comes in another’s being or anthying that manifests itself as a …., that is being existential.
how to define, one can only expereince existence of or not of …., of course, the one with ideas of eg, existentialism (Christianity, Buddhism or …will be imposing what it should be not be cos one is going to refer to the texts or . It is quarreling with reality, in other words one’s prejudcies, one’s bigotries color and distort what is being manifest!
Can u see how blinded, how prejudiced, how u avoid.
Please don't play the victim here .Mind you, it was you who labeled my questioning of your beliefs as stupidity. Whatever answers you claimed to have given, you FAILED to answer at least one simple question: How does existentialism answer the question of origins, life, meaning, death, morals? I can only see how you have avoided answering the question.
Originally posted by Fugazzi:Being self-honest is dignity, to avoid and deflect is deluding, that is no dignity
Then why are you avoiding and deflecting to answer my questions?
Originally posted by Fugazzi:Who told u that I have a belief, it is projecting your own mind and ur mind is looking for answers, my answers are not answers, they are to experienced and how can one make it to answers. Eg My mother says that god exists, it may have been true for her and not true for her. Till I m expereincing it and open to the possibilities of such an experience, i can go on repeating,which is nothing more than being sheep. However, if I evaluate, find out and risk expereincing it, i stand a chance of knowing or not knowing. This is flowing, and being existential.
Does one get up in the morning and stare at the sun to know that it exists. Whether one stares at it or not it exists, does it not? Does one have to have a belief about the sun?
The knowing happens when one looks at the trees, buidings and realize that they are bright or shine or … and only then one knows it is cos of the sun’s rays.
Many only realize that they have a head when they have a headache. Why? no awareness, disconnected from one’s own being Being stupid is to not know that one has prejudged existence, by that is implied one superimposes one’s ideas of morality, traditions and …. existence knows no such thing. Does a cat interpret and impose on what is or what is not, does it define, it simply abides to what is or what is not. Human mind, cannot handle the uncertainty that is inherent and hence the constant fear of the unknowing …...I can say that I believe in existentialism and why would i say that, i borrow and make it an idea to chase or expereince based on this belief. However, when i dont believe/disbelieve, I have nothing to hold on to or refer when I am moving/not moving with existence. I am being vulnerable, and the self cannot be propped up, how to prop up, there is nothing to lean on.
A pond is concepts, a pond is beliefs – it is stuck, vegetating, a river flows and all these concepts beliefs may become a reality or an unreality. So, at the end of it all, one has to know whether one is simply following others, or one is being an individual and seeking …. Also, whether one is seeking or not seeking, many avoid these qeustions – is one part of vested interests or one is not a part of such intereersts. If one is neither of these – jolly well know that one is for truth (not dicitionary meaning, not absolutes but in the knowing, expereincing finding out and finding out, there is no goal, no destination)I m going to ignore ur …. either u too prejudiced, bigoted or behind this so called intellect (which anyone can obtain) intellegence has been jettisoned for …. it a trade off. Still dont understand, can one try to herd lions? One can certainly herd sheep, why is that so? Cos the former does not need props the latter need props. These are methaphors, and to confuse knwoledge with knowing is the fallacy that seems to percolate and permeate believers! Knowing transforms, knowledge binds.
Fuzzi, EVERYBODY has beliefs. If you say you do not have any beliefs that makes you a liar, or a non-human. Choose one.
If you say your answers are not answers but mere experience, then don't say you have answered them. That also means you are admitting that you have NO answers to the questions that people are asking for centuries. What experience can you cite in order to answer the question of life's origins?
You should ditch the relativistic idea of truth because it is absurd. If something is true, it is true. It cannot be true just FOR you. God either exists or He does not. Whether you experience God or not is IRRELEVANT to His existence. You say you do not experience Him, yet all this while you are living in His world. It's like you were estranged from your father from birth, while you have no experience of fatherhood or a father-figure in your life can you say that you have no father? Or do you claim to be born of a virgin? I hope not.
I am bemused with how you are confusing yourself with your musings. Not only are your musings confusing, they are also amusing! You make no distinction between things that are seen (e.g. the sun) and things that are not seen (e.g spirits like God). While people do not need to believe that the sun exists because they can see it, people do have beliefs about the sun regarding its origins, it's make-up, it's behaviour etc etc. Your existential musings collapses upon itself and ends up in self-refuting notions, because in pretending to sound deeply philosophical you end up being logically shallow. That is the existential reality of your musings!
You refuse dictionary meanings, so why use English words at all? Why even bother to communicate with words? Every word you use has its connotations or denotation and definition. If your existential musings involves playing fast and loose with definitions, then no wonder you always think you are right because it means that your beliefs are like gello that cannot be pinned down.
Muse over this, truth can be known and truth can be experienced, when one lives according to the truth. Knowing and knowledge are not mutually exclusive, and your thinking so is the fallacy that so binds you to epistemological confusion. You can't claim to be knowing without the existence of that which is known aka knowledge. In short you are confused between knowing and experiencing, knowledge and experience.
i just got confirmation from the Brahma.................
Jesus died after the glutton ate 10 Tandoori chicken at one go.................
the clown claimed he was son of god so won't die one..................
hi all..
i just got an enlightenment..
religions r like casino games..
some swear by a single game, some avoided all totally, some hop here n there
some believe blackjack have better chances of winning
some stick to baccarat
some like the dices
many asians like baccarat.. some won big n so they play only baccarat
many westerners like blackjack... some won big n so they play only blackjack
of cos there are games like roulettes which attracted many asians n caucasians..
those who benefitted from their games will always stick to it...
to sum it up.. those who believe that the game they played is earning them $$ they will stick to that game.. those who failed miserably will search for other games n try their luck(beliefs)
but ultimately... the casinos r the one tat become richer... y? becos of the house edges of all the games(religions)..
so now is the thing... u standing on the side of the casino(religion) or the players(believers)??
if by 'donating' on the religion u have fate in.. works well for u.. then u r a true believer..
if u r the reverends priests monks gurus etc..... congrats :) u r on the casino side
Originally posted by Fugazzi:Fiction needs maintenance as opposed to what is real – catch the drift?
The only thing I catch is you committing the question begging fallacy!
Originally posted by starhawk:many asians like baccarat.. some won big n so they play only baccarat
many westerners like blackjack... some won big n so they play only blackjack
of cos there are games like roulettes which attracted many asians n caucasians..
those who benefitted from their games will always stick to it...
to sum it up.. those who believe that the game they played is earning them $$ they will stick to that game.. those who failed miserably will search for other games n try their luck(beliefs)
but ultimately... the casinos r the one tat become richer... y? becos of the house edges of alguil the games(religions)..
so now is the thing... u standing on the side of the casino(religion) or the players(believers)??
if by 'donating' on the religion u have fate in.. works well for u.. then u r a true believer..
if u r the reverends priests monks gurus etc..... congrats :) u r on the casino side
u can believe in yur truth i can believe in mine..
if u think by praying to ur god whenever u have sinned will make u feel better in life
thats ur truth..
if others think they will strike rich after they go pray to a tree
thats their truth..
if others think by avoiding pork they can live better..
thats their truth..
for me.. i have fate in working hard, eat healthily, exercise well, be TRUTHFUL to urself
thats my truth...
so did i ignore my truth? or did i ignore YOUR truth?