schopenhauer1

Yes, which is where the "dilemma" of two views of suffering come from. There is the viewpoint from humans (suffering is bad). There is the view from G...

And what's your worldview, or do you dare not to have an original thought? Just punt to dogma? Anyways, this is now tripling down on point 1: You stil...

Good is relative then. That is to say, can good for humans be at odds for good for God? The answer is harder than offhand references to medievalist Co...

You fail to get beyond comment 1, doubling down on it even, quoting other humans even.

And with this I can only think of a few answers.. All probably detached from Kimhi... 1) That's Kimhi's point.. Assertion shouldn't be distinct from t...

I don't think I would know either.. The only thing I can think of is that "assertoric force" although a type of "illocutionary force" (the intention o...

Then I will lead you to this:

1. Right but it's the need to see other people suffer, necessarily or not that seems interesting here. Why would an all good god care to see any suffe...

Then the omnipotent problem..

But why wouldn't an all powerful/knowing god not be able to take on the perspective of a (or any given) human and see suffering from that perspective?...

Tarski?

@"Wayfarer" I think this is why Schopenhauer is one of the best synthesizers of a non-theistic understanding of a Ground of Being (I won't go as far t...

:up:

Isn’t that the point?

You mean this sarcastically?

Why would you use the singular here? First off, it was the Roman Empire a huge empire, not just a "nation", unless you're being real liberal with that...

I wouldn't trace them that far back, but yes the Song of Miriam (Song of the Sea) and the Song of Moses and the Song of Deborah- basically small poems...

Yep, but there is a crucial difference here. Your theory in essence is saying that "The state is in search of a way to legitimize power". However, the...

I never said it wasn't :D! But you mentioned a purpose, and I gave you some purpose(s) from the many layers. Those purposes certainly had the intent o...

@"BC" Indeed the purpose was to maintain a people without a king/kingdom. Thus you have to work backwards and forwards in time from the Kingdoms of Ju...

:up:

I think this is the biggest thing to remember when approaching "The Bible" (aka the Hebrew Scriptures). That is to say, they were works that were comp...

Queue my point :D.

Illocution is the intent behind the statement. "The sky is blue" might be intended as a poem, a riddle, a question, etc. It may be an assertion, but n...

For Frege, isn't it about the "judgement of a statement as true". "It is true that the sky is blue" would be an example of something with assertoric f...

Yes, that's basically it. If someone like Frege is saying, "The cat on the mat" is not just something that is an epistemological claim then it seems t...

The bolded. Sorry yes, that's what I meant :). Thus.. the rest follows here: Reality and illusion is at the heart of much of early philosophy. Analyti...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935118

All these problems have been dealt before by the ancients and then by the Kantians. Parmenides asserts the world is ONE but we falsely perceive it as ...

Well that's what has become the discussion oddly. We must talk about how the logic is presented but then nothing that would ground the logic itself (t...

Why would that not be ontological? You are literally discussing someone's understanding of what an object is. Pondering the nature of objects/entities...

Now you are getting into metaphysics, I was told that this shan't be done for this discussion.

Why? How unphilosophical to assert. That in itself is a hefty claim. Not sophisti-cated.

As opposed to what?

Ok, what do you think it's about? I still don't understand the point.

I don't think this really addressed any of what I wrote by making some arbitrary functional psycho distinction. Frege/Tarski/Aristotle without the met...

As far as the general idea of language games, that's fine. I think it might be perhaps the project of turning philosophy into "philosophy of language"...

Some might say that the big concept here is it merely needs to satisfy an object language and meta-language. I’d imagine some would say this is just a...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/933474

This goes back to an initial question- is one born an asshole or does one learn to be an asshole? Either way, which is worse, expressing one's inner a...

Why do you think we can so easily detect (at least when we think) when someone is being an asshole? Why is it so visceral? Also, why do some people no...

Trump.. But then that could just be a narcissist. Are narcissists simply default/pathological assholes? I would imagine at the least, one can be a pat...

But you seem to be using the notion of "useful" as the arbiter of moral import here.. Which is indeed revealing. If "character counts" in some way, th...

So by this: I mean, perhaps an arsehole is a less cutting way of saying asshole. A genuine asshole might think of HIMSELF as JUST being an arsehole, w...

This does seem to be an equivalent identity. Or would the sense change? Is an asshole really an arsehole?

You recognize it and regret it. Is that really an asshole? Does an asshole own it usually? See quote above from Aaron James essay..

Nope, I knew I was wrong! I found a much better definition from a philosopher: https://philosophersmag.com/the-meaning-of-asshole/

And yes, thank you for being an exemplar. We needed a first go.

Mind you there is a whole philosophical book on it https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/0804171351 https://m.media-amazon.com/images/...

The definitions from various dictionaries include: I would say an asshole is a generally mean or mean-spirited person. I would reserve "stupid person"...