Hiding In Plain Sight.

[foxpaws]

No it doesn't. But misrepresenting it as such does facilitate the distortions you are setting up.

Can't look beyond that Marxist exploitation narrative can you. It has to be an "us vs. them" thing, doesn't it. Recognizing the contributions of and inspired by Christianity has to mean negating the contributions of non-christian societies. No other possibility will be entertained.

Why are you so hostile to Western Culture and to Christianity?

Why are you and others so hostile to cultures beyond the west and Christianity.

Cal very specifically said 'the greatest' with no qualifier. He negated everything accomplished beyond that with a Christian influence.

You don't think that Aristotle is one of the greatest philosophers ever shag? Cal doesn't - without Christian influence - the title 'greatest' is unachievable.

 

[fossten]

really - his quote



Not 'some of the greatest', not 'the greatest in the western world', not 'the greatest in the modern age', simply 'the greatest'.

Christianity may be credited with many things - but to 'blanket-ly' state that without it we wouldn't have had the greatest philosophers, artists and scientists is a very narrow viewpoint Foss.

Maybe in a very narrow modern, western view of the world that could be true (but even using those parameters it is difficult to look at that statement and still not question it).

Cal, in his effort to espouse all good comes only from a western Judeo-Christianity society, is showing how really narrow minded he is. His world view has such blinders on it that it appears he can't see the genius represented by religions, cultures and societies outside his experience.

You're mistaken. Cal said 'teachings.' That's a clear distinction. And frankly, your example of persecution (I assume you meant the Catholic Inquisition) not only had nothing to do with Christianity, but also had nothing to do with its teachings.

Protestants were murdered, burned, tortured, their records destroyed, in the name of THE CHURCH. Jesus Christ never taught what the Catholics did. Therefore, what they did was not Christian.

Why are you and others so hostile to cultures beyond the west and Christianity.

Because so many other cultures outside the West are malevolent dictatorships that lack human rights. Why is it you folks always defend the muslims but are hostile to the Christians? Perhaps you and your fellow travelers would be more at home in, say, Yemen or something. You'd certainly look better in a burqa than in Alice's outfit.

 

[shagdrum]

Why are you and others so hostile to cultures beyond the west and Christianity.

Because we recognize the superiority of Western Civilization we are hostile to other cultures? That is a huge logical leap. But demagoguery is always favorable to logic in your view, eh?

Maybe you should look beyond that unrealistic multicultural ideal. To view all cultures as inherently equal is not only illogical and unjust but unrealistic and absurd. It is a judgment made a priori; before (and without regard for) facts, evidence or history. It ignores the merits and faults of various cultures and in doing so ignores reality in order to subscribe to a naive and appealing view. Reality ends up being something to distort in order to fit the view; 180 degrees out of wack. Utopian visions like that are inherently dangerous.

The problem is, in ignoring the merits and faults (applying an egalitarian analysis) the multicultural view is an inherently unjust. Justice is people being punished for bad behavior and rewarded for good behavior. In the context of cultural analysis, that means weighing cultures against each other according to their merits and faults; an equal process.

With multiculturalism, the results are what matter and that necessitates an unequal process. Western Culture in particular, as the dominate and most successful culture has to be torn down in any multicultural analysis. This means downplaying and even ignoring the merits of the culture while exaggerating and even manufacturing the flaws of the culture. Reality is made to fit the ideal; unequal process aimed at achieving equal results.

The same flaw of unequal process aimed at equal results is at the heart of social justice and why it is unrealistic and ultimately dangerous to society. Any theory that doesn't comport with reality and, instead of adjusting to better fit reality attempts to fit reality to the theory is Utopian and Utopian theories are inherently unrealistic and dangerous.

Cal very specifically said 'the greatest' with no qualifier. He negated everything accomplished beyond that with a Christian influence.

A:"The greatest" does NOT mean "the ONLY". There is no "negation" and it is hyperbole to suggest there is.

B: Cal tied it to Western Civilization and Christian teachings are the foundation of Western Civilization.

In fact, most early philosophy comes out of Christianity in some fashion.

 

[cammerfe]

...Reductio ad Neroum YAY COINED A NEW TERM. ]

Wouldn't that be Nero-NEM? Been a long time since I took Latin!
KS

 

[FIND]

Wouldn't that be Nero-NEM? Been a long time since I took Latin!
KS

I wouldn't know. I never took Latin..... Just never got around to it.

 

[FIND]

I said that homosexuality may have been a factor. I never said that homosexuality was the cause. They are two very different things. Not that you are capable of recognizing that distinction.

Potatoe PotAtoe

What is that supposed to mean?

Funny. I thought that would have been a relatively simple sentence to understand.

Are you really such a moron that you cannot distinguish appealing rhetoric from a substantive, logical explanation?!

How are you even capable of knowing which philosophy is "the least narrow" if you are unable to distinguish rhetoric from reality? You have shown an utter ignorance of philosophy, worldview and/or ideology (and they are not the same thing), and an unwillingness to learn about them. Whatever your naive, simplistic perceptions of them are is all that matters. Nevermind that your perception is built on misleading, one sided rhetoric.

I have never seen anyone who so relishes in, and aggressively defends their ignorance.

Ahhh irony. I haven't seen you make a point yet on this page of the discussion. Everything you have said on this page has been ad hominem. Why don't you just give up if you are not intelligent enough to join in the discussion?

 

[foxpaws]

Because we recognize the superiority of Western Civilization we are hostile to other cultures? That is a huge logical leap. But demagoguery is always favorable to logic in your view, eh?

Just because I recognize the value and contributions of other cultures I am 'hostile' to Western Civilization and Christianity - you took the same 'huge' logical leap shag. But then you have learned a new word - demagoguery - and need to use it often...

Maybe you should look beyond that unrealistic multicultural ideal. To view all cultures as inherently equal is not only illogical and unjust but unrealistic and absurd. It is a judgment made a priori; before (and without regard for) facts, evidence or history. It ignores the merits and faults of various cultures and in doing so ignores reality in order to subscribe to a naive and appealing view. Reality ends up being something to distort in order to fit the view; 180 degrees out of wack. Utopian visions like that are inherently dangerous.

I don't look at all cultures as inherently equal - that is foolish - what I don't do is place one on the top of the heap in everything, art, science, philosophy. Exceptional-ism usually gets you in trouble when it is universally applied.

With multiculturalism, the results are what matter and that necessitates an unequal process. Western Culture in particular, as the dominate and most successful culture has to be torn down in any multicultural analysis. This means downplaying and even ignoring the merits of the culture while exaggerating and even manufacturing the flaws of the culture. Reality is made to fit the ideal; unequal process aimed at achieving equal results.

But by what measure do you place Western culture as the most dominate and most successful? Hindu culture makes western culture look rather puny. The great ancient cultures of Egypt and China, in their own timeframes far greater than Western Culture. If you measure western culture against its contemporaries to get a true idea of its 'greatness' how about measuring Chinese culture against its contemporaries - you will find a truly 'great' culture there.

A:"The greatest" does NOT mean "the ONLY". There is no "negation" and it is hyperbole to suggest there is.

B: Cal tied it to Western Civilization and Christian teachings are the foundation of Western Civilization.

Yes it does shag - Cal didn't qualify. Christian 'teachings' - come on - now we slice and dice that it so only within the teachings of Christ that men create greatness. You are really in trouble with going this route shag.

So, the teachings of Christ can be found much earlier in eastern religions, as well as in Greek and Roman philosophy. So since they pre-date Christ, you have to give those to Hinduism or Buddhists or the Greeks and even perhaps those terrible Romans, and a whole lot of them are to be found there - predating Christ by centuries. So, in reality, the teachings of Buddha or Confucius - which are 500 years older and are in many ways identical to Christ's teachings - or the musings of Aristole, are what we should trace 'western/judeo/christian' greatness back too, correct? Nothing really to do with Christ - since by the year 35 AD, his stuff was old hat in India and China and Greece.

In fact, most early philosophy comes out of Christianity in some fashion.

Really - lets look at the famous Greek philosophers - grab some dates...
Socrates - 469 BC
Plato - 427 BC
Aristotle - 368 BC
Euclid - 325 BC

Roman
Panaetius - 185 BC
Cicero - 106 BC
Lucretius 98 BC

Hindu
Rig Veda - 1500 BC
The Laws of Manu - 200 BC

Far East
Buddha - 565 BC
Confucius - 550 BC
Zhuangzi - 350 BC
Yang Zhu - 300 BC

And on and on and on shag - notice something in common with all of these - how about the letters BC...

You neglected to add.. .and most of Christianity philosophy comes from...

 

[04SCTLS]

And there's all the brilliant Jews.

 

[shagdrum]

I don't look at all cultures as inherently equal

And yet you spout talking points promoting a multicultural point of view; talking points that do promote that notion. In fact, all your arguments only make sense if approached from the perspective of cultural egalitarianism and the implicit flip side of that view that view; that any opposing viewpoint is inherently bigoted.

Is the notion of American Exceptionalism that abhorrent to you? Do you cringe at the idea that there is a reason that Western Culture is the dominate culture today; that it wasn't simple circumstance or some other nefarious factor, like imperialism or some other such nonsense? That there might be something unique to Western Culture that allowed it to rise to the top?

Weather or not you are aware of the actual rationale for and agenda promoted by the viewpoints you subscribe to, the result is the same. The viewpoint you are promoting is one rooted in a multicultural education.

It is worth noting that you are confirming that your argument hinges on the lie that "greatest" means "only". Unless you can redefine "greatest" to mean "only", you have no argument so you will do anything to make that deception stick. Kinda hard to make a logical argument when you are looking to rationalize a a knee-jerk reaction. Truth is an unfortunate inconvenience.

However, you did stumble on one relevant point, I should not have phrased it as early philosophy. Christianity didn't start influencing philosophy until Late Antiquity. However, from then on, most philosophy in the western world was in some manner derived from Christianity.

FYI: of all the philosophers you named, the two big influences in western thought were Aristotle and Plato. Most of the others had very minor influence at best, especially compared to Aquinas, Augustine, Hume, Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, etc.

 

[foxpaws]

Is the notion of American Exceptionalism that abhorrent to you? Do you cringe at the idea that there is a reason that Western Culture is the dominate culture today; that it wasn't simple circumstance or some other nefarious factor, like imperialism or some other such nonsense? That there might be something unique to Western Culture that allowed it to rise to the top?

No, the notion of exceptionalism is abhorrent to me. I don't cringe that western culture is dominate today - good for us, but to discount other great cultures that were dominate in their time - downright stupid. Plus - guess what that domination didn't last forever. Probably because they started to believe their own PR - that they were exceptional.

It is worth noting that you are confirming that your argument hinges on the lie that "greatest" means "only". Unless you can redefine "greatest" to mean "only", you have no argument so you will do anything to make that deception stick. Kinda hard to make a logical argument when you are looking to rationalize a a knee-jerk reaction. Truth is an unfortunate inconvenience.

Shag - you are the greatest misuser of the words 'whether/weather' I have ever run across. That is an 'only' statement shag. The greatest artist. Space for only one. The greatest statesmen - lonely at the top shag.

FYI: of all the philosophers you named, the two big influences in western thought were Aristotle and Plato. Most of the others had very minor influence at best, especially compared to Aquinas, Augustine, Hume, Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, etc.

So, Christ doesn't influence western thought - although his teachings led to our total world and time domination? Plus, don't Aquinas, Augustine, et al find their roots in Aristotle? Aren't we really tracing back to him?

 

[shagdrum]

No, the notion of exceptionalism is abhorrent to me. I don't cringe that western culture is dominate today - good for us, but to discount other great cultures that were dominate in their time - downright stupid.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options​

It is possible to acknowledge American exceptionalism and the dominance of western culture without discounting other cultures. In fact the only persons who have said or implied anything about discounting other cultures are you and FIND in your desperate attempt to smear opposition as bigoted. Characterizing it as an either/or proposition misconstrues things. Also, it is that "black and white" thinking that you love to trash from time to time.

To infer that, in acknowledging the dominance of western culture we are discounting other cultures is to smear those of us who do acknowledge the truth in the dominance of western culture.

Apparently you are reduces to posturing, misdirection and smears. Can't defend your multicultural viewpoint honestly?

It is also very telling that the notion of American Exceptionalism is abhorrent to you.

So, Christ doesn't influence western thought - although his teachings led to our total world and time domination?

???

Where are you getting that?

I have said, as has Cal and as history bears out that Christianity heavily influenced western thought. In fact, much of western thought is derived in some manner from Christianity.

Plus, don't Aquinas, Augustine, et al find their roots in Aristotle? Aren't we really tracing back to him?

Another implicit false dichotomy. Both of those men could have been (and were) influenced by Christianity and Aristotle. Anyone at all familiar with Aquinas or Augustine knows what you are pedaling is disinformation and misdirection and you know it as well. Apparently you are not above shamelessly lying and misleading.

You really are quite desperate, aren't you.

 

[fossten]

No, the notion of exceptionalism is abhorrent to me. I don't cringe that western culture is dominate today - good for us, but to discount other great cultures that were dominate in their time ...

Shag - you are the greatest misuser of the words 'whether/weather' I have ever run across.

How ironic.

Fox, the word is 'dominant,' not 'dominate.' Dominate is a verb, dominant is the adjective you're looking for.

Every time you play the spell Nazi game, you get hoist by your own petard.

 

[FIND]

How ironic.

Fox, the word is 'dominant,' not 'dominate.' Dominate is a verb, dominant is the adjective you're looking for.

Every time you play the spell Nazi game, you get hoist by your own petard.

"hoist WITH your own petard," is how the phrase is supposed to go. Think about it, it doesn't make sense otherwise.

Also, it should be play the spelling Nazi game. How's that for irony?

 

[04SCTLS]

"hoist WITH your own petard," is how the phrase is supposed to go. Think about it, it doesn't make sense otherwise.

Also, it should be play the spelling Nazi game. How's that for irony?

It's hoisted with your own petard, not hoist. but hoisted by your own petard is also acceptable

 

[FIND]

It's hoisted with your own petard, not hoist. but hoisted by your own petard is also acceptable

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist by your own petard.html

Yeah, I know the phrase isn't grammatically correct, but then again, it quite an old phrase.

Though it would have been cooler if I was wrong, then you could have made a grammatical error and we could have drug this out for a long time