A few questions

[daviddddddddddd]

Hi Stefan,

I will not try to go point counterpoint with you. There are just too many points. And you would lose anyway!! And you would lose because you have blocked out the truth of the other reality. No,no, i am not a religious nut, and in fact i began where you are now.  (really no condensation intended) Thus when i bought my first computer a few weeks ago, and was scanning you tube i discovered you and was pleasantly surprised to hear a strong and clear and confident voice about  ..to say the least... the state of things....

But when i turned to your writings...UPB....i was unable to get past the "null zone" 

Now i am aware of your "modest suggestion" but how can one go on when you write something like this:

 

"personally a man believes that that which cannot be seen does not  exist...intellectually, science has proven this repeatedly" 

 

Really. Is this a typo? Am i reading it wrong? What am i missing here?  Do you think it too insignificant a  thing to stop me from reading further? Do you realize how fundamentally ridiculous this comment is? It made me think that you are missing the obvious in the exact same way that you mock the majority for missing the obvious.

Tell me than, electricity does not exist because we cannot see it? Anger does not exist in a man because he doesn't show it and thus it doesn't exist? And most importantly, does consciousness, the very thing we are now using to read and write and understand these words, does not exist because we do not see it?...because science has not been able to capture the mental energy waves as they have an electric light bulb.

Please tell me that i have mis -understood you.....!!!

 

Along different lines but really the same, in the end, have you considered that maybe you too are still duped on certain very very foundational  issues? Issues that would not necessarily alter your world outlook, but would so deepen it. 

I offer you one example in the form of a question:

If we didn't evolve from monkeys and we were not put here by "God", are you willing to consider a third option?"Do you know that a third option exists which has nothing do to with  "God." or "Science?"

 

Again, you might claim that these issues should wait until i have heard your whole moral theory, but please understand, that if you believe we come from monkeys and if you do deny the unseen (and unheard) then your theory's foundation cannot hold water. And besides that, the theory  of what is right and wrong and how to make it operative in a society can be summed up in one word:

Context.

Everything is contextual, which mean it  is neither subjective nor objective.... and yet it is both.

But first we must have a very precise idea of what human nature is....I could go on, but lets see if you sweep me under the rug or deal with my questions.....they are not intellectual exercises in metaphysics and biology..

they pertain to how you see yourself and how you see yourself is really the whole issue;if you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you are going to have to ground yourself deeper.... 

 

david

 

 

 

 

 

[Wesley]

Along different lines but really the same, in the end, have you considered that maybe you too are still duped on certain very very foundational  issues? Issues that would not necessarily alter your world outlook, but would so deepen it. 

I offer you one example in the form of a question:

If we didn't evolve from monkeys and we were not put here by "God", are you willing to consider a third option?"Do you know that a third option exists which has nothing do to with  "God." or "Science?"

What is this third option you are presenting?

[Pepin]

David, I'd recommend going through the Introduction to Philosophy series to get a fuller understanding of Stefan's use of the term "exist".

[Rob_Ilir]

Hi David, welcome.

 

""and in fact i began where you are now...

you might claim that these issues should wait until i have heard your whole moral theory...""

 

^That is one contradiction I found weird.

 

Also, what is your argument?