 |
| NASA/Google |
The philosophical question of the day from my Facebook Personal Blog page is...When a Facebook Personal Blog article is no longer 'quote' an 'Engaging Post', does it become a 'Divorced Post?'
Just wondering.
I watched on Knowledge Network, roughly the last half of the following program:
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson
I could not remember Mr. Thompson being mentioned in the media and news recently and remembered his name mentioned in what seemed classic contexts. I knew he was a famous writer of a sort. This reasoning and his documented lifestyle had me awaiting the train wreck.
Wikipedia
Cited
(Thompson my add) 'was an American journalist and author, and the founder of the gonzo journalism movement.'
Wikipedia
Cited
'Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first-person narrative. The word "gonzo" is believed to have been first used in 1970 to describe an article by Hunter S. Thompson, who later popularized the style.'
Back to first Wikipedia article
'He was also known for his lifelong use of alcohol and illegal drugs, his love of firearms, and his iconoclastic contempt for authoritarianism. He remarked: "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."
After a bout of health problems, Thompson committed suicide at the age of 67. In accordance with his wishes, his ashes were fired out of a cannon in a ceremony funded by his friend Depp...'
Cited
'On August 20, 2005, in a private funeral, Thompson's ashes were fired from a cannon. This was accompanied by red, white, blue and green fireworks—all to the tune of Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" and Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man".[50] The cannon was placed atop a 153-foot (47 m) tower which had the shape of a double-thumbed fist clutching a peyote button, a symbol originally used in his 1970 campaign for Sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado.'
End citations
I reasoned this interesting person was probably critical of religion and so I briefly researched his name and found the following.
Goodreads
Cited
'Hunter S. Thompson
Quotable Quote Hunter S. Thompson
“I have never seen much point in getting heavy with stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I...'
Hunter S. Thompson, The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time'
'They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I...'
That statement intrigued me as classic secular empirical (the senses) reasoning. In other words, Christians and religious people cannot empirically and scientifically demonstrate that they will inherit the earth, and no one can demonstrate thus empirically.
Therefore no one will ever inherit the earth.
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
From Oxford
Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
I admit not knowing Mr. Thompson's work in-depth, but the reasoning in regard to the comments may be using a form of empiricism and scientism.
In regard to the apparent type of reasoning presented (non-exhaustive):
Empiricism, scientism and like approaches are limited epistemological and academically, even as empiricism and science are essential for gaining types of knowledge, including academic.
Rationalism/deductive reason, theology, religious studies and philosophy of religion are limited epistemological and academically, even as these are essential for gaining types of knowledge, including academic. But these disciplines are not being considered as reasonable sources of knowledge.
Documented scriptural revelation within the religious studies discipline is dismissed.
Therefore, I do not find the statement, 'They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I...' as conclusive epistemologically and academically against a proposition that Christians in Jesus Christ through the trinitarian, Biblical God, shall (ultimately) inherit the earth.
Further, empirically in the present realm, humanity has inherited the earth. It is a finite, temporal realm where human death is extant, but in a sense humanity has already inherited the earth gaining dominion and rule.
Therefore, it is not rationally, theologically and philosophically unreasonable that God, the philosophical first cause creator (Genesis 1-3) gave humanity dominion/rule over the earth (Genesis 1: 26). This almighty deity can also recapitulate creation, the universe and planet earth (Matthew 5: 5, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 21-22)..
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
 |
| Warpednerdversity: ??? |
 |
| Hyper-social status Christianity, a new theological term. |
