The Pat Condell Thread [DISCUSSION]

Falsey wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Ad7 wrote:Wait, you actually watched it?

Life's pretty boring if you only watch and read things you know in advance you'll probably agree with.

Lifes pretty gooseberry fool when you get to the end and you realised you wasted all your time watching gooseberry fool like that.

Especially when its for the sake of yet another random 'debate' with idiots on an internet forum.

Skarjo wrote:

Falsey wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Ad7 wrote:Wait, you actually watched it?

Life's pretty boring if you only watch and read things you know in advance you'll probably agree with.

Lifes pretty gooseberry fool when you get to the end and you realised you wasted all your time watching gooseberry fool like that.

Especially when its for the sake of yet another random 'debate' with idiots on an internet forum.

What the hell else are you lot good for?

Moggy wrote:Still no Pat Condell thread then? At least mark the title so the rest of us can easily avoid this daft prick.

And no Cal we are not saying Nick, you and Pat cannot have your own opinions. We just ask you have a dedicated thread or mark up the threads so we can see what it is before seeing the old banana splits face.

1cmanny1 wrote:

Moggy wrote:Still no Pat Condell thread then? At least mark the title so the rest of us can easily avoid this daft prick.

And no Cal we are not saying Nick, you and Pat cannot have your own opinions. We just ask you have a dedicated thread or mark up the threads so we can see what it is before seeing the old banana splits face.

You have to count your seconds at your age don't you buddy?

Falsey wrote:Dont bundle me with the willfully ignorant and uninformed who fuel your desire to discuss everything at great length.

Moggy wrote:

1cmanny1 wrote:

Moggy wrote:Still no Pat Condell thread then? At least mark the title so the rest of us can easily avoid this daft prick.

And no Cal we are not saying Nick, you and Pat cannot have your own opinions. We just ask you have a dedicated thread or mark up the threads so we can see what it is before seeing the old banana splits face.

You have to count your seconds at your age don't you buddy?

I really do, I am closer to death with every second that passes.

Skarjo wrote:

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:I think he's playing it a bit fast and loose with his terminology there.

He's conflating 'transcending' as religious types talk about it, in terms of God and knowledge transcending reality, and the way 'transcendentalism' and, by extension, transcendentalists, talks about consciousness being able to lifted up other 'levels' which, though frequently wrapped up in plenty of mystic nonsense, is still a scientific phenomenon which can be reliably and predictably achieved and observed in a variety of ways.

Even Sam Harris, arch-nemesis of those of faith, talks about meditation and transcendentalism as real world phenomena which don't tread on the toes of faith.

Condell needs to sort his language out because he's muddying the waters of his argument with sloppy and inaccurate language, making for an inconsistent argument predicated on false terminology.

All that's fair criticism, but I think Pat's just choosing to interpret 'transcendence' in one particular (and still, by one definition at least, accurate) way. Taken on those terms I think his message is actually coherent and does hold up to scrutiny.

He is, but he does himself no favours by not actually taking the time to define the way in which he's actually using the word, nor does he acknowledge that it is a very broad term that covers a huge range of beliefs and practices.

If you're not going to specifically define what you mean when you use a word, nor specifically acknowledge that there are other uses of the word that you are not referring to, then you're on extremely dangerous ground when you start saying that it's a word that 'means nothing at all, whilst sounding like it means everything'.

hoodboilu4 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:I think he's playing it a bit fast and loose with his terminology there.

He's conflating 'transcending' as religious types talk about it, in terms of God and knowledge transcending reality, and the way 'transcendentalism' and, by extension, transcendentalists, talks about consciousness being able to lifted up other 'levels' which, though frequently wrapped up in plenty of mystic nonsense, is still a scientific phenomenon which can be reliably and predictably achieved and observed in a variety of ways.

Even Sam Harris, arch-nemesis of those of faith, talks about meditation and transcendentalism as real world phenomena which don't tread on the toes of faith.

Condell needs to sort his language out because he's muddying the waters of his argument with sloppy and inaccurate language, making for an inconsistent argument predicated on false terminology.

All that's fair criticism, but I think Pat's just choosing to interpret 'transcendence' in one particular (and still, by one definition at least, accurate) way. Taken on those terms I think his message is actually coherent and does hold up to scrutiny.

He is, but he does himself no favours by not actually taking the time to define the way in which he's actually using the word, nor does he acknowledge that it is a very broad term that covers a huge range of beliefs and practices.

If you're not going to specifically define what you mean when you use a word, nor specifically acknowledge that there are other uses of the word that you are not referring to, then you're on extremely dangerous ground when you start saying that it's a word that 'means nothing at all, whilst sounding like it means everything'.

I think he's trying to say that transcendence can not actually be defined. It simply refers to a higher power.

The thing is to understand what a higher power is you must be capable of a higher power's level of understanding. It's as he said at the beginning - a magic brush to stop people from questioning religion. You can't argue against something you don't understand.

Skarjo wrote:But this is just it; transcendentalism isn't defined with reference to a higher power. It just means not on the normal plane of thought, but that can achieved though a lot of means that don't require nor reach a higher power.

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:But this is just it; transcendentalism isn't defined with reference to a higher power. It just means not on the normal plane of thought, but that can achieved though a lot of means that don't require nor reach a higher power.

But surely the point is that Pat is contextualizing the word through the prism of (and with reference to) organised religion, regardless of any other interpretation?

Skarjo wrote:

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:But this is just it; transcendentalism isn't defined with reference to a higher power. It just means not on the normal plane of thought, but that can achieved though a lot of means that don't require nor reach a higher power.

But surely the point is that Pat is contextualizing the word through the prism of (and with reference to) organised religion, regardless of any other interpretation?

Yes, and if he had phrased the argument in a way that made it clear that he was disagreeing with the way religious types are framing discussions of transcendentalism then I wouldn't have a problem, but he instead chooses to directly call it a meaningless word.

Call it a nit-pick if you want, but someone like Condell, not exactly a stranger to inflammatory comments, should be careful to frame his arguments more specifically.