the one.

[Amorphos]

the one.
please read all to get the picture i am attempting to paint...

why the one, that is why has history thrown up single figures of prominence yet never two at the same time. you never get hannibal VS alexander etc you only ever get one, the same goes in religion where ultimately you have a few ‘ones’ that stand out. some would say that you only have one one i.e. jesus or mohamad but this brings me on to the next point, you never get one world ruler of any kind! in all the empires, religions and political formats we never arrive at a single theory leader or way of being, even science has no one theory.

another level to the argument
is there a difference in effect between the one and the group or multitude? that is a difference between a dictator and an elected party. ultimately you get bad dictators and bad political parties, and a party has to act as a single unit to function effectively.

so is it possible for there ever to be ‘the one’!?

[Ummon]

Everyone of us, someway, some time in life, is the one. Trying to be the best of the best is though, a rather bad way to spend one's time.

[HopliteElite]

Since every culture is very different and has very different perspectives, it is nearly impossible to unite them all under one man or creed.

[Amorphos]

ummon

yes i suppose we are one’s. didn’t jesus try to be the best in some manner? is this not his main claim to the throne of man?

HE

Since every culture is very different and has very different perspectives, it is nearly impossible to unite them all under one man or creed.

this is true in many cases, but not for e.g. gengis khan or alexander, caeser etc, without going into a history lesson what i am saying is that a bulldozer just does its job i.e. you could rule the world through power alone.

[Ummon]

Jesus didn't try, allegedly. He was.

[Amorphos]

ummon

so they say, but jesus did want that image of him! or at the least the religion does.

now onto some main points;

1. if we did have one ruler would that be a good or bad thing?

2. would it matter ~ to within given perimeters ~ what he was like?

3. if a religious leader, would that stifle philosophy etc?

[Irishman]

The reason why we never have 'the one' vs. 'the one' (Like Hannibal vs. Alexander) is because we view these people as the one because of their accomplishments. There are many cases in history of great generals fighting eachother, but only one will be remembered as legendary.

Also, it is easier to spread and complete accomplishments worthy of being great if you dont have to fight another great.

Overall, it has happened, but we only view the victors as the true greats.

1. if we did have one ruler would that be a good or bad thing?

If we had no say in the ruler, it would end badly.

2. would it matter ~ to within given perimeters ~ what he was like?

Yes, totalitarian regimes almost always end in groups of disenfranchised people.

3. if a religious leader, would that stifle philosophy etc?

Has in the past, would in the future. Philosophy would still be promoted, (of course, as in Christian Europe, only Christian philosophy would be accepted.

[Ummon]

Just as in atheist Europe, only atheist philosophy is accepted. Lately, the Pope couldn't even go to a conference because students violently protested...

[Amorphos]

irishman

There are many cases in history of great generals fighting eachother, but only one will be remembered as legendary.

true, though scippii is not so well remembered as like hannibal although he won.

Overall, it has happened, but we only view the victors as the true greats

it has never happened worldwide, not in any context political religious or otherwise ~ although capitalism can perhaps be said to rule in various guises.

If we had no say in the ruler, it would end badly.

perhaps, but even hitler would maybe be ok in the end, we would have unity but no jews tis all.

Yes, totalitarian regimes almost always end in groups of disenfranchised people.

with similar guids to what a party has [like in democracy] then maybe not, although it would be hard to keep everyone happy.

Has in the past, would in the future.

what if it was the right philosophy? would that still be wrong?

ummon

Just as in atheist Europe, only atheist philosophy is accepted. Lately, the Pope couldn’t even go to a conference because students violently protested...

good!

[Ummon]

good!

Heh, no, sorry. Infact, that was intolerance, as he had been invited. It has caused sensible shame in the left, infact, and, I know you appreciate it, helped Ratzinger a lot.

And yet there are plenty of Christian philosophers who are widely regarded. The pope is not a philosopher, he is a thologan, who has furthered the divide in racial tension after the great work of JP2.

Just because the Pope is rejected does not mean Christian Philosophy is, although, philosophers tend not to be christian (the religious ones believing in the "God of the Philosophers") due to the inherent irrationality of the God described in the Bible.

Like I said, protesting a leader who has a bad track record does not mean they are protesting the religion.

1) this implies no dialogue when there is a difference.
2) I consider only the protesters to have a bad track record, now.
3) the Pope not only has the right, but the duty to exert his magisterium, and since he has no political power, his influence comes only from the fact that people believe in what he says.
4) theology is also a branch of philosophy.

[Amorphos]

irishman

The only way to know a philosophy is correct is to allow it to follow reason unhindered. Without that, it cannot happen.

thence once it is arrived at, we then have ‘the way’. the problem is of course that even if you did have one right overall philosophy, in time it would become incorrect, and hence you statement would then stand again. so i agree.

ummon

Heh, no, sorry. Infact, that was intolerance, as he had been invited. It has caused sensible shame in the left, infact, and, I know you appreciate it, helped Ratzinger a lot.

damn ya just can’t win. it was wrong as he had been invited ~ but obviously not by all involved!

the Pope not only has the right, but the duty to exert his magisterium, and since he has no political power, his influence comes only from the fact that people believe in what he says.

does he, perhaps no one has the ‘right’. ehem no political power! are you joking... he may not have direct power but has a few billion at his fingertips ~ in a democratic environment that is quite some power indeed.

theology is also a branch of philosophy.

perhaps there should only rightly be philosophy, theology is either in it or not, but to take areas of philosophy and call them your own is detrimental to the greater part. i mean theology is not a branch as such ~ like any other e.g. empiricism, it 'bags' many aspects that should belong to all.

[Ummon]

damn ya just can’t win. it was wrong as he had been invited ~ but obviously not by all involved!

Students do not invite guest lecturers.

does he, perhaps no one has the ‘right’. ehem no political power! are you joking... he may not have direct power but has a few billion at his fingertips ~ in a democratic environment that is quite some power indeed.

Like Stalin asked in Yalta: How many tank divisions does the Pope have?

perhaps there should only rightly be philosophy, theology is either in it or not, but to take areas of philosophy and call them your own is detrimental to the greater part. i mean theology is not a branch as such ~ like any other e.g. empiricism, it 'bags' many aspects that should belong to all.

Theology is a branch of philosophy, just as ethics is. Philosophy studies all aspects of human thought and knowledge.

Religion is a subject of philosophy, and theology began as a part of Philosophy (as did every other subject) but Theology has sucessfully branched far enough away from philosophy that it can be considered another subject.

So you say. Yet there are plenty of philosophers who are theologians, and vice-versa.

This sentence makes not sense, and im not sure what you are talking about.

I don't really think so. Infact the sentence meant: by supporting violent and intolerant protest against a speech by anyone, you are advocating stop to dialogue between differing opinions.

Obviously violent protests are not the way to go, but there is no reason that people cannot protest against corrupt leaders.

If I protested against all those I, based on my ideology and not fact, deem corrupt, I would not only be silly, but wrong.

Right... So the fact that he claims mystical power gives him the right to try to do and impose anything he wishes? Might want to rethink that...

The Pope doesn't impose anything. The Pope represents a stance about reality. One you may disagree with, as no one kills you or discriminates you if you do not.

[Irishman]

Just as in atheist Europe, only atheist philosophy is accepted. Lately, the Pope couldn't even go to a conference because students violently protested...

And yet there are plenty of Christian philosophers who are widely regarded. The pope is not a philosopher, he is a thologan, who has furthered the divide in racial tension after the great work of JP2.

Just because the Pope is rejected does not mean Christian Philosophy is, although, philosophers tend not to be christian (the religious ones believing in the "God of the Philosophers") due to the inherent irrationality of the God described in the Bible.

Like I said, protesting a leader who has a bad track record does not mean they are protesting the religion.

I would protest the Ayatollah of Iran because of the kind of person he is, not because I have a problem with Islam.

it has never happened worldwide, not in any context political religious or otherwise ~ although capitalism can perhaps be said to rule in various guises.

Confucius and Buddha were contemporary eastern philosophers.

what if it was the right philosophy? would that still be wrong?

The only way to know a philosophy is correct is to allow it to follow reason unhindered. Without that, it cannot happen.

[Irishman]

4) theology is also a branch of philosophy.

Religion is a subject of philosophy, and theology began as a part of Philosophy (as did every other subject) but Theology has sucessfully branched far enough away from philosophy that it can be considered another subject.

1) this implies no dialogue when there is a difference.

This sentence makes not sense, and im not sure what you are talking about.

2) I consider only the protesters to have a bad track record, now.

Obviously violent protests are not the way to go, but there is no reason that people cannot protest against corrupt leaders.

3) the Pope not only has the right, but the duty to exert his magisterium, and since he has no political power, his influence comes only from the fact that people believe in what he says.

Right... So the fact that he claims mystical power gives him the right to try to do and impose anything he wishes? Might want to rethink that...

[Amorphos]

irishman

Religion is a subject of philosophy, and theology began as a part of Philosophy (as did every other subject) but Theology has sucessfully branched far enough away from philosophy that it can be considered another subject.

true. i was just thinking that every aspect of it would be philosophical, but it wouldn’t most of it are anti philosophy.

Obviously violent protests are not the way to go, but there is no reason that people cannot protest against corrupt leaders.

i believe sometimes it is better to show how you feel ~ not that i would condone violence, but there are many historical cases where it was most necessary. a lot of people have had enough of blind ignorance especially as it affects us all.

[Irishman]

by supporting violent and intolerant protest against a speech by anyone, you are advocating stop to dialogue between differing opinions.

I didn't support the violence, but I do suppoet protest against intollerant and evil men.

If I protested against all those I, based on my ideology and not fact, deem corrupt, I would not only be silly, but wrong.

So we cannot admit when ideologies harm people?

If you are not willing to stand up against people who's violent ideas and practices harm people, that is your choice, but those who do are certainly not wrong. (I am not saying that the pope is someone who does this, but the argument could be made.)

The Pope doesn't impose anything.

No he just "exerts his magisterium."

The Pope represents a stance about reality.

And if that stance harms already tense relations between Christianity and Islam, we cannot criticize his actions?

[Ummon]

I didn't support the violence, but I do suppoet protest against intollerant and evil men.

Intolerant and evil in your opinion. Not losing the perception of the relativity of one's opinion is always a great idea. You might infact be wrong, and him right.

So we cannot admit when ideologies harm people?

What you should do is in my opinion, reach your own conclusions with, as I said, more openmindedness as to the fact that you might be wrong.

If you are not willing to stand up against people who's violent ideas and practices harm people, that is your choice, but those who do are certainly not wrong. (I am not saying that the pope is someone who does this, but the argument could be made.)

Certainly, it seems rather silly to become angry over the ideas of a near ninety years old man. One might pay the respect of concocting objections, instead.

No he just "exerts his magisterium."

Which depends on others accepting him as an authority.

And if that stance harms already tense relations between Christianity and Islam, we cannot criticize his actions?

Actually, telling the truth I have never seen as harming. Additionally, he did, by doing so, what those protesters preferred to skip for intolerance. He spoke of his ideas with regard to something, without fear of the possible violent response.

Something which is much more on the lines of enlightenment, than the usual portrayal of an obscurantist church.

Personally, I think that this Pope is the best in one century. Too bad he is not a gnostic.

[Irishman]

Intolerant and evil in your opinion. Not losing the perception of the relativity of one's opinion is always a great idea. You might infact be wrong, and him right.

It is not the philosophy I am against, it is harming others, and that is not relative.

What you should do is in my opinion, reach your own conclusions with, as I said, more openmindedness as to the fact that you might be wrong.

If people are killing others, harming others, I see no reason to be open minded to people who harm others.

Evil may be a subjective concepts, but causing harm to others.

Certainly, it seems rather silly to become angry over the ideas of a near ninety years old man. One might pay the respect of concocting objections, instead.

It is not his ideas I have a problem with, it is his actions (and the fact that he preaches that people burn for all eternity for not being catholic).

[Ummon]

It is not the philosophy I am against, it is harming others, and that is not relative.

Did the Pope harm others? With a stick, I suppose...

Or you mean the powerful oppressive power of the Church keeping the world in its grip?

If people are killing others, harming others, I see no reason to be open minded to people who harm others.

Are they? You mean the armies of the Catholic Church?

Evil may be a subjective concepts, but causing harm to others.

Harm can be very subjective as well.

It is not his ideas I have a problem with, it is his actions (and the fact that he preaches that people burn for all eternity for not being catholic).

1) he was there to give a speech, not to drop a bomb.
2) people have a brain: they may not believe him, if they think it is false. I don't, for example, think that you burn in hell for not being Catholic, although I think that sometimes Catholics say excellent things about how not to burn in hell.

[Amorphos]

Like Stalin asked in Yalta: How many tank divisions does the Pope have?

he has all the american, british etc tanks! well in a sense anyway.