ndhl83
ndhl83 t1_j146y7t wrote
Reply to comment by Falcomaster20 in Do no conform: Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Self-Reliance argues that we should strive for greatness and self-reliance rather than the "meanness" of conforming to the society's dead institutions saying that "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind" by thelivingphilosophy
Perhaps you could try articulating your point more, then, rather than assuming it was so well stated it should not have been missed?
ndhl83 t1_j0305do wrote
Reply to comment by Laegmacoc in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak
Oof...the very notion that (in this case, blackness) would be a "dent in your sisyphusian boulder" begs the notion that "blackness" is a flaw one is saddled with.
Rather than speak againat it, you've managed to reinforce the notion that sometimes a differentiation based on inherent starting point is needed...the "black experience" is predicted on both living it but also having it imposed on you, at birth, by a larger societal group who wants to "other" you from the get go, before you even have a chance to form your own identity.
ndhl83 t1_j1495ke wrote
Reply to comment by Zanderax in Do no conform: Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Self-Reliance argues that we should strive for greatness and self-reliance rather than the "meanness" of conforming to the society's dead institutions saying that "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind" by thelivingphilosophy
> For example, how can there be Christian physicists and cosmologists when basically all scientific findings counteract the bible?
This isn't a well thought out position to maintain, as there is technically no disconnect between observable and measurable science and the notion of a (possible) creator deity/deities since the presupposition there would simply be that our science is the practice of understanding the world/universe/multiverse that was made by that deity. Science, in this regard, effectively becomes a branch of theology (for those who subscribe both to religion and the sciences). The science (as understood today) also doesn't change just because I may not believe in a creator god origin...I could believe in spontaneous existence or a non-deity "alien" creator and the measurement of forces and chemical compositions of substances remain the same, regardless.
To that end, a devout physicist or chemist or biologist is just plying their trade to understand the world they believe was made by their supposed creator. The hypothesis, measurements, and conclusions don't really care what the genesis of the subject was, we're just trying to understand what is in front of us.
I'm saying this as an agnostic secularist and not a practicing anything...as far as I know we have not disproven any possibility of a "creator god" with science, we've just gotten really really good at dissecting and explaining how (some) things in the natural world work...even if we can't always conclusively say where they came from, or why.