How easy is it to imagine this train of events?
Since corporations can now give contributions to political parties for their campaigns we can see that it would be easy for giant companies to insert their candidate greased with big bucks to run for a particular party.
When all the right politicians are in place it would be easy to start changing the rules ever so slightly towards a more orderly and moral society. Perhaps we might wake up one morning to the news that it is no longer permissible to work on Sunday, or, in other words, everyone deserves a day off, these evil corporations have had their way for far too long, forcing secularization on the public at large like this.
Fundamentalist Christians would be dancing in the streets! The right wing media would be ecstatic, claiming peace throughout the land, one step closer to a right and moral society with good values.
A few more obscure laws and abortion suddenly becomes unconscionable, a disgrace, murder even!
Now, not only Fundamentalists, Catholics would be on board, one more step towards ALL admitting that life is absolutely sacred and holy and ought to be revered at least in principle, above all but God.
The next step is to encourage people to see that we are ALL servants of God. We are all here to do HIS bidding after all and the law of the land really ought to reflect this.
At this point the government has been filled with like-minded individuals and it is suggested that, although the Holy Bible is an inspired book it is not the last inspired word of God, obviously, because it seems to cause so many schisms.
The only thing for it really is to change calling yourself a servant of God to plain Muslim, which means the exact same thing after all.
Those who refuse? Well, there are, shall we say, methods of persuasion and the plain facts of the Quran as written by the last Prophet of God, Muhammed, peace be upon him, isn't there?
What do you say? Could NEVER happen?
Friday, March 19, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Can't 'really' know anything...
I'm arguing my point of view with a good man, a nice man, a man who feels like he knows where it's at.
But he seems to think that he's not just bandying words when he says, "I can't 'really' know anything at all!", then I point out that he is not being truthfull here because he obviously 'knows' that he is right about that. Then he goes on, "Oh no, YOU'RE being disingenuous because now YOU'RE using words in a way to mean what you want."
I admit that words are easy to twist. One of my main objections to philosophy, especially the theistic philosophy of Plato on through Descartes IS that the things they say, the conclusions that they come to don't mean a damned thing although they sound reasonable because they take both sides of the argument.
I think therefore I am, could mean that consciousness is like a first cause kind of thing, that it had to be before space and matter could exist OR it could just mean that the only way you can know that you exist is that you are a thinking being and thinking beings are the only 'things' that can think this.
I'm skeptical of this first view because saying that it is 'correct' seems to imply the supremacy of consciousness much as religion needs to and seems to be tending to confrim religious thinking. Having the second view of this statement seems to deem the statement unnecessary. So what if we are the only things in existence that 'know' we exist? Doesn't mean a damned thing right?
Still, convincing me that you 'can't know anything' seems silly because there doesn't seem to be nowhere to go there but to slyly take that all back then convince me that you know a helluva lot more that you're claiming in that 'first philosophy' of yours, yes?
Then if you start getting into 'first causes' and/or 'quantum physics'.. then you're REALLY calling yourself a total bullshitter, if you TRULY believe that you can't KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL.
But he seems to think that he's not just bandying words when he says, "I can't 'really' know anything at all!", then I point out that he is not being truthfull here because he obviously 'knows' that he is right about that. Then he goes on, "Oh no, YOU'RE being disingenuous because now YOU'RE using words in a way to mean what you want."
I admit that words are easy to twist. One of my main objections to philosophy, especially the theistic philosophy of Plato on through Descartes IS that the things they say, the conclusions that they come to don't mean a damned thing although they sound reasonable because they take both sides of the argument.
I think therefore I am, could mean that consciousness is like a first cause kind of thing, that it had to be before space and matter could exist OR it could just mean that the only way you can know that you exist is that you are a thinking being and thinking beings are the only 'things' that can think this.
I'm skeptical of this first view because saying that it is 'correct' seems to imply the supremacy of consciousness much as religion needs to and seems to be tending to confrim religious thinking. Having the second view of this statement seems to deem the statement unnecessary. So what if we are the only things in existence that 'know' we exist? Doesn't mean a damned thing right?
Still, convincing me that you 'can't know anything' seems silly because there doesn't seem to be nowhere to go there but to slyly take that all back then convince me that you know a helluva lot more that you're claiming in that 'first philosophy' of yours, yes?
Then if you start getting into 'first causes' and/or 'quantum physics'.. then you're REALLY calling yourself a total bullshitter, if you TRULY believe that you can't KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL.
Friday, March 5, 2010
What's going on?
I'm very suspicious by nature, so when I started getting those 'Forbidden' ... Access Denied 'things' instead of my favourite blogs, I naturally assumed that someone was out to 'get' me.
It's funny, but these things seem to come in waves, or you happen to change one thing and another thing 'just happens' to be starting at exactly the same time, much like Brian's Big Brain Synchronicity stuff.
If anyone is having a problem with this and can't access their own blog, I've found that searching for blogspot then signing in seems to get you to your own blog.
Has anyone figured this out yet? Perhaps you could comment with 'the' solution?
It's funny, but these things seem to come in waves, or you happen to change one thing and another thing 'just happens' to be starting at exactly the same time, much like Brian's Big Brain Synchronicity stuff.
If anyone is having a problem with this and can't access their own blog, I've found that searching for blogspot then signing in seems to get you to your own blog.
Has anyone figured this out yet? Perhaps you could comment with 'the' solution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)