And so ladies and gentlemen of the gallery, that is the point where inevitably the argument of superior philosophy contested between the materialist and the spiritualist ends, in a spiral to the ground.

Effectively because the goal is on common ground. One denies the attachment of soul and body, the other denies the soul the possibility of transcendence, but both admit to influences of the forces of nature over the body in its living form.

But where in this is morality? Morality is a social construct. Secularism has changed the name to ethics which suits the fluid nature of secularism, and allows such absurdity to flourish as with Laissez-faire abortion, gay marriage and I add here, multiculturalism, since it manipulates one culture to dominate another!
Is it ethical to manipulate a housing market by suppressing interest rates artificially, to the obvious benefit of those in a political position of power to personally benefit their property portfolio?

It’s these pragmatic questions which leave Philosophic argument to continue between two fools on a hill.

Dan

Dear Dan,

«...philosophy contested between the materialist and the spiritualist...»

A spiritualist is a person who indulges with spirits, ghosts of the dead, indeed a despicable, harmful and sinful practice - are you accusing me of that?

«One denies the attachment of soul and body, the other denies the soul the possibility of transcendence»

But I have not discussed soul in any manner: this is because that term can be very confusing and different people use the word 'soul' for totally different things. If you like to discuss souls then you must first define what it means in your particular jargon.

«But where in this is morality? Morality is a social construct.»

Not by me - I was arguing that morality is derived from nature.

«Is it ethical to manipulate a housing market by suppressing interest rates artificially, to the obvious benefit of those in a political position of power to personally benefit their property portfolio?»

All I can say is that this practice is immoral, by most people at least, because most people would hate being on the losing end of that stick.

Yuyutsu

There’s a line to cross between practicality and philosophy.
I was referring to Paul McCartney hit of 1960’s “fool on the hill”, which is a reference to a wise sage.
Wisdom is fine, but it’s practical application is what interests me.

We commonly use the word morality in its positive sense, but most of the discussion around the subject is negative.
I outlined a small number of them above.

I also think it’s a wise idea which denotes a sense of responsibility towards a persons belief if they claim in words to be spiritually alive and wise to its calling, to keep a firm footing in the physical world we inhabit as humans.
After all, there’s a war going on between good and evil.

I believe we should treat our lives as a physicist treats the study of matter against the scales of entropy. The more it heats up, the faster and more chaotic are the particles of matter.
We are not here for good times. Nothing will kill you quicker than sitting around in a lounge chair. That’s the low end of entropy.

Dan

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « I am dumbfounded by your suggestion that by flying to the moon people broke the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that physical bodies mutually exert a certain pulling force, but does not preclude the possibility of other forces in the opposite direction neutralising this force, which is just what the Apollo rockets did »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu, Apollo had to “neutralize” the force of gravity, i.e., make gravity (the law of nature) ineffective by applying an opposite force or effect. To make a law ineffective is to violate, break or contravene that law.
.

2. « I do not understand what you mean by "laws of a philosophical nature": are you suggesting the existence of some natural laws that only apply in the presence of people who love to think, not otherwise? »

As I indicated in my previous post, “natural laws” or "laws of a philosophical nature" ( as opposed to “laws of nature”) are defined as “a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

I also indicated that “natural laws” (unlike “laws of nature”) do not exert physical constraint. The respect of “natural laws” depends essentially on the control exercised by our conscience.

I added that modern “natural law” theory dates from the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) and became synonymous with the concept of natural rights and that natural law theory was a key component of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen following the French Revolution in 1789, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations of 1948.

These laws and conventions affect not just “spirit” as you indicated in a previous post. They affect human beings in their integrality just as positive law (statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles) affects them.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. In reply to my statement “I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date”, you replied :

« That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd »
.

No, it’s not, Yuyutsu, nor is it simply based on belief – such as that of Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes.

Hindus believe that the jiva-atman is also eternal but is imprisoned in an earthly body at birth. At death, they believe that the jiva-atman passes into a new existence determined by karma, or the cumulative consequences of actions. The cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) is eternal according to some Hindus, but others say it persists only until the soul has attained karmic perfection, thus merging with the Absolute (brahman).
.

Religious beliefs are a personal matter, Yuyutsu. I respect them all, including yours, but I do not consider that any of them correspond to my personal worldview based on the current state of the art of scientific knowledge.

Religious doctrine has all too often been proven wrong concerning nature and the universe.

« The American physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that the idea of a soul is incompatible with quantum field theory (QFT). He writes that for a soul to exist: "Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of 'spirit particles' and 'spirit forces' that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.”

Some theorists have invoked quantum indeterminism as an explanatory mechanism for possible soul/brain interaction, but neuroscientist Peter Clarke found errors with this viewpoint, noting there is no evidence that such processes play a role in brain function; Clarke concluded that a Cartesian soul has no basis from quantum physics »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
«To make a law ineffective is to violate, break or contravene that law.»

The law of gravity was not ineffective: it had the effect of producing a force which countered and reduced the force of Apollo's rockets. Had it been ineffective, Apollo would have flown even faster.

2.
«“natural laws” or "laws of a philosophical nature" ( as opposed to “laws of nature”) are defined as...»

Very confusing, so you say that "natural laws" are not the same as the laws of nature?

Even if the laws you just introduced actually exist, why give them such a misleading name as to make believe that they belong in this topic?

3.
Let us not diverge into the topic of souls (sorry, my time is limited) because it is not essential here. Speculating whether or not souls exist in nature and if so what is their relation with matter and how is that consistent with quantum mechanics, etc. etc., may all be of much curiosity, but all this is confined to the research of nature, and as I already told Dan, I not do claim to know all of nature's secrets.

Regardless of any Hindu beliefs, I gave you concrete examples (and I could produce many more) regarding the absurdity of identifying yourself with your body.

I can then go a step further and (time permitting) demonstrate that the same applies not only to your body, but that it is also absurd to identify oneself with nature or any part thereof (including souls, if there are such), that doing so is the pinnacle of illogical superstition.