The Philosophy of the Illuminati

[zeroinfinity]

 

ah yeah, I forgot. You're also free to redefine "existence" to fit the needs

Other than that you rather sound like a salesman for the books than a person who wants to bring forth any actual claims/principles which we could analyze and debate about.
No one's gonna buy a car if the salesman refuses to even give the basic specs and is unwilling to adress the concerns about them, and no one's gonna read any book if any question in regards to the basics is answered in vague mysterious language (or not answered at all and simply avoided).
(apply the usual margin of error to the term "no one")

 

 

Who's talking about redefining existence?  How does that even make sense, and who is attempting that there?  Not I.  Irrelevant statement.

What I am continually amazed about is how, in academia, science, philosophy, and otherwise "intellectual" circles, the hardest thing it is to do is to get someone to read a book.  Why is it that in academia/intellectualism, it is where we find the highest percentage of people making fun of the concept of books and reading them?  This is something that has amused me my entire academic career.  I have found it is because most "intellectuals" are actually posers to actual rationalism.  I have been providing the basic specs, and addressing the concerns, and answering some questions, so, your characterization is anti-reality.

Do some reading; see what it is all about.  Philosophers spend money on philosophy books...at least I always have.  It is about 45 books that comprise a completely integrated philosophy and very original position on the entire human condition and nature of reality, based on the highest traditions of rationalism and philosophy.  No one else in the history of man has put together such a comprehensive set of material as this.  It is the most all-encompasing philisophical treatise that has ever been attempted, and it does it.

[John]

Ever the eternal knowledge junkie, I belong to what has to be only a handful of people who have “drank deep” from both the FDR and Illuminati springs.  Consider me the “synthesis”.

For FDR people, I believe it is worth exploring the Illuminati publications when you are ready for something “completely different”.  If you think what Alex Jones rails against day after day is the real Illuminati you will be shocked to discover how wrong you are.  You can get your feet wet at the armageddonconspiracy.co.uk website.  Any true rational mind should be hooked after the first few chapters of “The God Game”.

I am grateful to the Illuminati for releasing to the public some of the rational philosophical arguments they must have been refining for 2500+ years as they claim.  It is intellectually pleasing to me to now possess a consistent rational metaphysical framework for approaching the “big” questions where the laws of science break down:  namely the big bang and consciousness itself.  The Illuminati write about much more than metaphysics – it probably takes at least a few months of dedicated self-study to begin to understand what they are about (no different from anarchism).

Their description of the “meritocratic state” is perhaps the most convincing argument to save politics from itself that will ever be devised – just not quite convincing enough for this anarchist.  My primary critique of their material is that they do not approach their ethics with the same degree of rational argument from first principles as their metaphysics.  As a result, they just assume some degree of institutionalized violence is justified without questioning why that power always seems to gravitate to the most sociopathic human predators in society.  They propose a state far superior to the most advanced democratic republics that exist today but which will still eventually corrupt itself due to the same fatal ethical premise all states are founded on.

I would love to see an Illuminist response to UPB and I’m sure Stef would read and respond to it in a podcast – as long as it didn’t consist of (1) “anarchism has never been tried” (neither have philosopher kings) and (2) ad homonyms about the general type of person interested in “anarcho-capitalism” (most of which are spot on but of course irrelevant to the validity of the arguments put forward).

[Guest darkskyabove]

Well, here we go again...and again...and again.

Someone wishes to force their distorted concepts on other people and gain approbation; when rejected they resort to every fallacious endeavor ever invented.

Can we stop with the ridiculous straw man of what the Scientific Method is? Do your damn research. I have. Do you think I'll accept your misrepresentation if you say it 100 times.

The OP has made numerous claims, and attempted to verify them: zero times. I, too, could claim anything I wish. But can I present a rational argument, can I present evidence?

So, some people have taken mysticism, blended it with parts of science, and I'm supposed to consider it valid.

Not a chance!

Posting on this forum entails a certain level of responsibility. First, and foremost, never assume that what you write is original. Most every topic has been explored in numerous venues, at numerous times. I would say "Google" it, but I don't use Google. How about "Duckduckgo" it?

Does anyone truly think that because they read "some" book, that they suddenly have the answers humanity has been searching for?

Get over it!

It's one thing to present some ideas; quite another to turn it into a devolution of debate.

Final note:

If OP wishes to pursue this inanity, I've plenty of free time. Check your references. The entire argument cited is, to put it mildly, completely shreddable.

Refer back to the misrepresentation of the Scientific Method. And, especially, check who is promoting Kantian ideas. (Because it's you.)

[TheRobin]

 

Ever the eternal knowledge junkie, I belong to what has to be only a handful of people who have “drank deep” from both the FDR and Illuminati springs.  Consider me the “synthesis”.

For FDR people, I believe it is worth exploring the Illuminati publications when you are ready for something “completely different”.  If you think what Alex Jones rails against day after day is the real Illuminati you will be shocked to discover how wrong you are.  You can get your feet wet at the armageddonconspiracy.co.uk website.  Any true rational mind should be hooked after the first few chapters of “The God Game”.

I am grateful to the Illuminati for releasing to the public some of the rational philosophical arguments they must have been refining for 2500+ years as they claim.  It is intellectually pleasing to me to now possess a consistent rational metaphysical framework for approaching the “big” questions where the laws of science break down:  namely the big bang and consciousness itself.  The Illuminati write about much more than metaphysics – it probably takes at least a few months of dedicated self-study to begin to understand what they are about (no different from anarchism).

Their description of the “meritocratic state” is perhaps the most convincing argument to save politics from itself that will ever be devised – just not quite convincing enough for this anarchist.  My primary critique of their material is that they do not approach their ethics with the same degree of rational argument from first principles as their metaphysics.  As a result, they just assume some degree of institutionalized violence is justified without questioning why that power always seems to gravitate to the most sociopathic human predators in society.  They propose a state far superior to the most advanced democratic republics that exist today but which will still eventually corrupt itself due to the same fatal ethical premise all states are founded on.

I would love to see an Illuminist response to UPB and I’m sure Stef would read and respond to it in a podcast – as long as it didn’t consist of (1) “anarchism has never been tried” (neither have philosopher kings) and (2) ad homonyms about the general type of person interested in “anarcho-capitalism” (most of which are spot on but of course irrelevant to the validity of the arguments put forward).

 

When one synthesyses truth and error one doesn't create something more whole, but merely makes truth even less accesible by entangling it in error. But I guess I'm just one of those who are not truly rational then

[fingolfin]

Knowledge of reality is incomplete without knowing why reality is there in the first place.  Why reality exists is not an invalid question, it is the only question.  Science is about building models of reality, but the models are not reality itself. Reality itself is a-priori, and logical ratioanlism can discover the analytic prerequisites for the existence of reality.

Actually, while I'm all for why questions and believe science strives to answer them, in this case, it's not a rational question to ask why a thing exists, outside the context of our definitions. A thing (object) exists because it simply meets the criteria for 'exist'. Ambiguity creeps in because most people use 'exist' as a verb. It is not. Scientifically, exist is an adjective. Things do not pop "into" or "out of" an "existence" state. Space cannot convert to matter and vice versa (despite what theists or atheists claim).

It's somewhat akin to asking 'why is the sky blue?'. Well, because we define it as such. But objectively speaking (ruling out perception and opinion), the sky is neither blue nor green nor red. The sky is simply a hypothesized object.

A valid why question invokes key frames in a causal chain of hidden events. Why means the critical snapshots of our movie (theory). How is the gritty details in between, the full animated sequence.

[fingolfin]

Knowledge of reality is incomplete without knowing why reality is there in the first place.  Why reality exists is not an invalid question, it is the only question.  Science is about building models of reality, but the models are not reality itself. Reality itself is a-priori, and logical ratioanlism can discover the analytic prerequisites for the existence of reality.

Also, note that reality is a synonym for existence. What is real is what exists.

Knowledge is not a part of the scientific method. To be objective, we must assume (hypothesize) and then explain; we do not "know" as this leads to dogma not understanding. Only an omniscient god "knows" with 100% certainity. 

[zeroinfinity]

 

Well, here we go again...and again...and again.

Someone wishes to force their distorted concepts on other people and gain approbation; when rejected they resort to every fallacious endeavor ever invented.

Can we stop with the ridiculous straw man of what the Scientific Method is? Do your damn research. I have. Do you think I'll accept your misrepresentation if you say it 100 times.

The OP has made numerous claims, and attempted to verify them: zero times. I, too, could claim anything I wish. But can I present a rational argument, can I present evidence?

So, some people have taken mysticism, blended it with parts of science, and I'm supposed to consider it valid.

Not a chance!

Posting on this forum entails a certain level of responsibility. First, and foremost, never assume that what you write is original. Most every topic has been explored in numerous venues, at numerous times. I would say "Google" it, but I don't use Google. How about "Duckduckgo" it?

Does anyone truly think that because they read "some" book, that they suddenly have the answers humanity has been searching for?

Get over it!

It's one thing to present some ideas; quite another to turn it into a devolution of debate.

Final note:

If OP wishes to pursue this inanity, I've plenty of free time. Check your references. The entire argument cited is, to put it mildly, completely shreddable.

Refer back to the misrepresentation of the Scientific Method. And, especially, check who is promoting Kantian ideas. (Because it's you.)

 

The scientific metaparadigm is flawed and presents an incomplete handle to knowledge.  You seem not to understand Kant.  Books are available if anyone likes books.

[zeroinfinity]

 

Knowledge of reality is incomplete without knowing why reality is there in the first place.  Why reality exists is not an invalid question, it is the only question.  Science is about building models of reality, but the models are not reality itself. Reality itself is a-priori, and logical ratioanlism can discover the analytic prerequisites for the existence of reality.

Actually, while I'm all for why questions and believe science strives to answer them, in this case, it's not a rational question to ask why a thing exists, outside the context of our definitions. A thing (object) exists because it simply meets the criteria for 'exist'. Ambiguity creeps in because most people use 'exist' as a verb. It is not. Scientifically, exist is an adjective. Things do not pop "into" or "out of" an "existence" state. Space cannot convert to matter and vice versa (despite what theists or atheists claim).

It's somewhat akin to asking 'why is the sky blue?'. Well, because we define it as such. But objectively speaking (ruling out perception and opinion), the sky is neither blue nor green nor red. The sky is simply a hypothesized object.

A valid why question invokes key frames in a causal chain of hidden events. Why means the critical snapshots of our movie (theory). How is the gritty details in between, the full animated sequence.

 

 

Yes I find "why" is a question many people dislike immensely.  When I ask "why", I mean the details, not a spiritual significance.  Although, that doesn't mean a spiritual significance can not be found afterwards, and to end up relating to the original answer of the question.

Why does reality exist rather than not?  That's a clear question.  I do not accept "it just exists", "it exists because it is what is", or things to that effect, because those aren't real answers.  There must be a logical rational reason for why reality exists rather than not, an incosetible rational a-priori justification, and yes, by the very nature of it that will also go to answering "why we" are here as well, in terms of how we came to be, and what the purpose might be.  Purposelessness is simply an outcome of the current scientific metaparadigm, and that is fine because science has to be that way.  But by no means does it means philosophy has to be subsevient to that position as well, because of course, science is a subset of philosophy...philosophy is not a branch of science that needs to obey the scientific boundary conditions, philosophy can go beyond into logical inevitibility.

[zeroinfinity]

 

Knowledge is not a part of the scientific method. To be objective, we must assume (hypothesize) and then explain; we do not "know" as this leads to dogma not understanding. Only an omniscient god "knows" with 100% certainity. 

 

This is a basically Kantian position; we can only know what our senses tell us but we can not know the true noumenon behind those senses.  This, of course, precludes the existence of mind and reason itself and is why science is Kantian, and then subsequenly Popperian, and is why materialism doesn't acknowledge the existence of mind.

Of course, to bring God into the picture, then we must define God :-)  And that makes up a very large fraction of the dicussion from the Illuminati.  If God can know everything, then why can't we?  We can, of course, but "they" don't want you to think that.

[zeroinfinity]

 

Ever the eternal knowledge junkie, I belong to what has to be only a handful of people who have “drank deep” from both the FDR and Illuminati springs.  Consider me the “synthesis”.

For FDR people, I believe it is worth exploring the Illuminati publications when you are ready for something “completely different”.  If you think what Alex Jones rails against day after day is the real Illuminati you will be shocked to discover how wrong you are.  You can get your feet wet at the armageddonconspiracy.co.uk website.  Any true rational mind should be hooked after the first few chapters of “The God Game”.

I am grateful to the Illuminati for releasing to the public some of the rational philosophical arguments they must have been refining for 2500+ years as they claim.  It is intellectually pleasing to me to now possess a consistent rational metaphysical framework for approaching the “big” questions where the laws of science break down:  namely the big bang and consciousness itself.  The Illuminati write about much more than metaphysics – it probably takes at least a few months of dedicated self-study to begin to understand what they are about (no different from anarchism).

Their description of the “meritocratic state” is perhaps the most convincing argument to save politics from itself that will ever be devised – just not quite convincing enough for this anarchist.  My primary critique of their material is that they do not approach their ethics with the same degree of rational argument from first principles as their metaphysics.  As a result, they just assume some degree of institutionalized violence is justified without questioning why that power always seems to gravitate to the most sociopathic human predators in society.  They propose a state far superior to the most advanced democratic republics that exist today but which will still eventually corrupt itself due to the same fatal ethical premise all states are founded on.

I would love to see an Illuminist response to UPB and I’m sure Stef would read and respond to it in a podcast – as long as it didn’t consist of (1) “anarchism has never been tried” (neither have philosopher kings) and (2) ad homonyms about the general type of person interested in “anarcho-capitalism” (most of which are spot on but of course irrelevant to the validity of the arguments put forward).

 

 

Greetings.