Morals????

[Verdad]

Thanks for the read, Ami. I don't feel like adding anything at present (won't be around much for a few days, either), but I enjoyed hearing this more personal angle. A nod and a .

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, I did look at the link and it is total bullshit. For one thing, the shroud is not painted. For another, it could not be produced by modern technology. To surmise that it could be produced somehow by a painter in the Middle Ages is absurd.

As for the Discovery Channel -- they were reporting a piece of research. You can check it out yourself if you dare.

There you go then-- the sceptic's view, in your opinion, is total bullshit-- the credulous view, in mine, is total bullshit.

Says it all, really, and impossible to argue over.

 

[amicus]

Pure, your Post #174 http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/Lisle/dial/hegel.html

Georg Wilhelm Friederich Hegel 1770-1831

"...Hegel was the last of the main representatives of a philosophical movement known as German Idealism, which developed towards the end of the eighteenth century primarily as a reaction against the philosophy of Kant, and whose main proponents, aside from Hegel, include Fichte and Schelling..."

Let me pose an analogy of sorts here, one between modern steel and concrete construction of tall buildings and bridges, to that of man's initial attempts at building with mud huts, wooden structures and then of stone, some of the latter still standing hundreds of years later; and that of man's first attempt to replace religion, faith, with reason, logic and rationality.

Perhaps one might view German Idealism, with tendrils sprouting in both lateral and futuristic directions, that formed the foundation for modern rationalist, 'objective' endeavors.

The second thing here is a conclusion I drew from the entirety of your post and that is: once you have assailed both faith and reason as faulty and fallible approaches to human thinking and behavior, what are you left with?

One can understand faith as a position taken from fear, engendered by the random chaos of observable nature in the form of storms, volcano's earthquakes, flood and famine, and the inexplicable 'still birth's' and human children born blind or crippled.. To me, it is fully understandable why faith necessarily preceded reason in man's attempt to comprehend a hostile world and environment.

As with Architecture, which Rand used in quite a similar method, the ability expands with knowledge but hindered by faith, which has been the history of all knowledge at it challenged and is finally breaking free of faith and belief.

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

This is towards the end of the piece:

"... Ayn Rand on the history of philosophy

Rand regarded her philosophical efforts as the beginning of the correction of a deeply troubled world, and she believed that the world has gotten into its present troubled state largely through the uncritical acceptance, by both intellectuals and others, of traditional philosophy. In the title essay of her early work For the New Intellectual, Rand levels serious criticisms of canonical historical philosophers, especially Plato, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Herbert Spencer. In her later book, Philosophy: Who Needs It, she repeats and enlarges upon her criticisms of Kant, and she also accuses Harvard political theorist John Rawls of gross philosophical errors. Rand is accused of misinterpreting the works of many of the philosophers she identified as responsible for advancing bad and false philosophy..."

This refers back to Verdad's post concerning the 'is/ought' controversy:

Rand is criticized for her outright rejection of David Hume's ideas at the foundations of her philosophy. Hume famously maintained, "No is implies an ought," but Rand disagreed by arguing that values are a species of fact (see is-ought problem). She wrote, "In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

Criticism of Kant:

"...Rand's interpretation and criticism of the views of Immanuel Kant, in particular, have sparked considerable controversy.[34] Critics take issue with Rand's interpretation of Kant's metaphysics: like early critics of Kant, Rand interpreted Kant as an empirical idealist. It is a long-standing question of Kant scholarship whether this interpretation is correct; in the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant claimed that his transcendental idealism was different from empirical idealism;[35] in the second edition he even attempted to refute the latter.[36] Contemporary philosophers such as Jonathan Bennett,[37] James van Cleve,[38] and Rae Langton[39] continue to debate this issue. Other critics focus on Rand's reading of Kant's ethical philosophy. Rand held that Kantian ethics improperly takes self-interest out of ethics:

"What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer...It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil." Kant clearly did maintain (in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals) that an action solely motivated by inclination or self-interest is entirely lacking in moral worth. While many Continental philosophers influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche would agree that Kant's own ethical theorizing is itself motivated by or expresses a sort of ascetic masochism,[40] and many analytic philosophers championing virtue ethics (e.g., Bernard Williams) would agree that Kantian ethics places excessive demands on the moral agent,[41] Rand appears alone in characterizing Kantianism as always requiring self-sacrificial effects. The contemporary philosopher Thomas E. Hill has explicitly defended Kant against this charge in his article, "Happiness and Human Flourishing in Kant's Ethics," in the anthology Human Flourishing. ..."

(I take this opportunity to invite anyone interested to read this piece in its' entirety if you wish a full spectrum of Ayn Rand's view of life from all aspects, including Romanticism and Art) http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

(Pure)

"...So while the advance of 'reason' can, i suppose to credited with stopping the burning of witches and *religious* wars, and perhaps with bringing prosperity to the first world, the overall picture is rather mixed, i think you would agree. both the US and Germany were highly advanced in science, investigation of reality by reason, but found themselves killing one another with advanced technology..."

I understand your point although I disagree with it for a rather important reason. Rand continually gave warnings to those who appreciated her words, to not become a 'follower' or, 'believer', in Objectivism, lest it become a 'cult'. I refer you back to a previous comment concerning the struggle of 'reason' to overcome the trappings of faith and belief. As there were and are many approaches to, 'faith', so to have there been many approaches to reason and rationality. In all fairness, even you would accept that men are capable of errors in judgment. And I will accept that criticism of Rand and Objectivism is perfectly in order and should continue to refine her efforts. What I object to is the blind hatred and academic dismissal of her works without reason.

(Pure) "...

Conclusion: So some of us are scared by certain 'men of faith,' such as inquisitors; but we are ALSO scared by certain 'men of reason', who may have decided that i don't fit their 'rational plans', and that, given my defects, esp. "irrationality", there is no reason for my continued existence [at least as a free person]. Indeed, amicus, you have mentioned shooting a number of types who disagreed with your politics. I'd personally feel safer with certain 'men of faith'.."

Again, to repeat a point, if you reject both reason and faith, where then do you turn for guidance, not only in every day actions you decide to take, but in Metaphysical considerations?

You play with words in your reference to me, "...shooting a number of types..." To be clear, I do advocate the use of lethal force in the defense of one's life, liberty and property. I further posit, as a specific, that, should the United States or a coalition of Western Democracies,decide to invade Iran and 'liberate', the women and children there from a slave state mentality of oppression, the moral right, if not obligation, depending upon the ability, exists.

You post: http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2004/06/07/ronald-reagan-on-religion-and-politics/

Quotations by the former, late President Ronald Reagan, acknowledging that faith, specifically the Christian faith, played a great role in the founding morality of the United States. Duh?

A huge majority of people, not only in America, but everywhere, express a belief in a Supreme Being. We Atheists are in a decided minority and will remain thus for centuries to come. I am appreciative that Church and State are legally separated under our Constitution and I fervently desire it to remain so. That is not to dismiss faith, or spirituality in any way, as it forms the moral foundation for most people everywhere.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

There you go then-- the sceptic's view, in your opinion, is total bullshit-- the credulous view, in mine, is total bullshit.

Says it all, really, and impossible to argue over.

What is bullshit it the first the statement that the shroud is painting. Any cursory examination of the scientific evidence gathered in the 70's would show that this cannot be the case.

Second, the long section

McCrone's theory is that "a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Christ." The model was covered in red ochre, "a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image's wrists, feet and body to represent blood."

and there is more.

This whole idea is worthy of about five seconds of consideration. Wrapping the figure in cloth would give a wildly distorted image, not at all like the one evident in the Shroud. Plus, the image in the Shroud has three dimensional detail not achievable by ANY known process.

If this is any example of what you consider "critical thinking" then you are being sorely misled. Really, to entertain this theory for a nanosecond you would have to dismiss the SCIENTIFIC evidence surrounding the shroud -- in the name of skepticism.

 

[cloudy]

What is bullshit it the first the statement that the shroud is painting. Any cursory examination of the scientific evidence gathered in the 70's would show that this cannot be the case.

Second, the long section


and there is more.

This whole idea is worthy of about five seconds of consideration. Wrapping the figure in cloth would give a wildly distorted image, not at all like the one evident in the Shroud. Plus, the image in the Shroud has three dimensional detail not achievable by ANY known process.

If this is any example of what you consider "critical thinking" then you are being sorely misled. Really, to entertain this theory for a nanosecond you would have to dismiss the SCIENTIFIC evidence surrounding the shroud -- in the name of skepticism.

If taken at face value, then Jesus would have had to have been over seven feet tall. I think they would have mentioned that in the bible.

 

[WRJames]

If taken at face value, then Jesus would have had to have been over seven feet tall. I think they would have mentioned that in the bible.

Where are you getting that from? I have NEVER heard that assertion, and when I just did a quick check on Google, I came up with five foot ten or so as the estimate.

 

[cloudy]

Where are you getting that from? I have NEVER heard that assertion, and when I just did a quick check on Google, I came up with five foot ten or so as the estimate.

Does it matter?

You're clearly a believer, and for whatever evidence I find that says it's a fake (and I truly believe it to be a fake), you'll counter it with some rationalization, because you seem to need to believe in it.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What is bullshit it the first the statement that the shroud is painting. Any cursory examination of the scientific evidence gathered in the 70's would show that this cannot be the case.

Second, the long section


and there is more.

This whole idea is worthy of about five seconds of consideration. Wrapping the figure in cloth would give a wildly distorted image, not at all like the one evident in the Shroud. Plus, the image in the Shroud has three dimensional detail not achievable by ANY known process.

If this is any example of what you consider "critical thinking" then you are being sorely misled. Really, to entertain this theory for a nanosecond you would have to dismiss the SCIENTIFIC evidence surrounding the shroud -- in the name of skepticism.

Using all caps for the word does not make the "evidence" SCIENTIFIC. The asseveration that the threads that were used for the carbon dating coincidentally came from a patched area-- quite a coincidence indeed. You'd think those carbon testers would have been much more careful in pulling their sample-- being fully cognisant of the differences between re-woven and original fibers. Anyone with some basic knowledge of can tell the difference between cotton and linen fibers through a microscope-- even your everyday magnifying glass. Those had been invented by 1988, you know.

And how wonderful that the fellow know it and had threads from "nearby.."


I have a hypothesis that it was created by draping, not over a real human body, but a reclining tomb effigy-- or a sculpture made especially to serve the hoax.

 

[WRJames]

Does it matter?

You're clearly a believer, and for whatever evidence I find that says it's a fake (and I truly believe it to be a fake), you'll counter it with some rationalization, because you seem to need to believe in it.

Whatever floats your boat.

That is such total bullshit. I am nor countering with "rationalizations" -- I am asking you to come up with explanations that fit the known scientific facts. If you have a source for your "seven foot" assertion, let's see it. I didn't put that on the table, you did. Back it up, or back off.

First, it may indeed be a fake. However, if it is, it was constructed in a manner we cannot duplicate.

URL="http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/3d.htm"]Here,[/URL] for example, is some information about the 3D characteristics of the Shroud.

It was that piece of analysis that generated the initial wave of scientific excitement in the 70's.

You will also see some links on that page to early descriptions of the Shroud.

 

[cloudy]

That is such total bullshit. I am nor countering with "rationalizations" -- I am asking you to come up with explanations that fit the known scientific facts. If you have a source for your "seven foot" assertion, let's see it. I didn't put that on the table, you did. Back it up, or back off.

First, it may indeed be a fake. However, if it is, it was constructed in a manner we cannot duplicate.

URL="http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/3d.htm"]Here,[/URL] for example, is some information about the 3D characteristics of the Shroud.

It was that piece of analysis that generated the initial wave of scientific excitement in the 70's.

You will also see some links on that page to early descriptions of the Shroud.

They have duplicated it. I can't cite a source, because it was something I read, and can't remember where, but I know it wasn't some crackpot website (I don't read shit like that).

They believe it was made using the same technology that they used to use for early photographs.

Quit being such an ass.

 

[WRJames]

They have duplicated it. I can't cite a source, because it was something I read, and can't remember where, but I know it wasn't some crackpot website (I don't read shit like that).

They believe it was made using the same technology that they used to use for early photographs.

Quit being such an ass.

Your reactions are just confirming what I said in my original post -- "non believers" are just as emotional in their beliefs as anyone else.

Really, the anger you are exhibiting is quite astonishing.

Why is that? For me, the question of whether or not the Shroud is a fake is really a minor concern. It certainly has been considered a fake for most of its existence. It is hardly a fundamental part of the Christian faith.

Beyond that, personally, the Resurrection is not central to my faith. If you would like to have a nice, calm, discussion on the subject with assertions that make sense and are backed with some evidence, that would be okay.

I looked up links to the Shroud being duplicated. One made the claim, but without any backup. From what I have seen, neither painting nor photographs can reproduce the 3D effect of the Shroud.

 

[cloudy]

Your reactions are just confirming what I said in my original post -- "non believers" are just as emotional in their beliefs as anyone else.

Really, the anger you are exhibiting is quite astonishing.

Why is that? For me, the question of whether or not the Shroud is a fake is really a minor concern. It certainly has been considered a fake for most of its existence. It is hardly a fundamental part of the Christian faith.

Beyond that, personally, the Resurrection is not central to my faith. If you would like to have a nice, calm, discussion on the subject with assertions that make sense and are backed with some evidence, that would be okay.

I looked up links to the Shroud being duplicated. One made the claim, but without any backup. From what I have seen, neither painting nor photographs can reproduce the 3D effect of the Shroud.

Who said I was a "non-believer"?

If you think *this* is angry, you're obviously projecting.

You put it out there as an example. I called bullshit. Believe in the flying spaghetti monster if you like. It's just as likely. I don't give a shit what you believe in, but if you want to use something like the shroud of Turin, claiming it as some holy, mystical object, I'm gonna call bullshit.

 

[WRJames]

Who said I was a "non-believer"?

If you think *this* is angry, you're obviously projecting.

You put it out there as an example. I called bullshit. Believe in the flying spaghetti monster if you like. It's just as likely. I don't give a shit what you believe in, but if you want to use something like the shroud of Turin, claiming it as some holy, mystical object, I'm gonna call bullshit.

"Stop being such an ass" isn't angry?

 

[cloudy]

"Stop being such an ass" isn't angry?

*snort*

No, that's not angry.

 

[WRJames]

Well, I guess this thread is about shot. We once had a discussion going, but as usual it's devolved into Cloudy throwing personal insults. Too bad.

 

[cloudy]

Well, I guess this thread is about shot. We once had a discussion going, but as usual it's devolved into Cloudy throwing personal insults. Too bad.

Please....tell me how "no, that's not angry" equals a personal insult.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally, I thought the discussion stopped when james used the term "total bullshit," to describe critical analysis of "probably the most mysterious object on the planet."

 

[WRJames]

Personally, I thought the discussion stopped when james used the term "total bullshit," to describe critical analysis of "probably the most mysterious object on the planet."

Well -- possibly. But that particular explanation was so absurd I couldn't help myself.

A big ancient camera might at least explain SOME of the physical characteristics -- but the one your "critical thinking" expert chose just displayed a complete lack of critical thinking. So I couldn't resist pouncing on it.

 

[amicus]

Because of comments on this thread, when I noticed, "The DaVinci Shroud" on the Discovery Channel, I managed to catch the last ten minutes of the program. It aired tonight, 05/17/09, original air date: 04/08/09... you who are involved, may find the content interesting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=31529935

ami

 

[past_perfect]

****

deleted, should have read the full post before.