You are quite right, and I hereby rename the refusal to adapt "the Dodo adaptation" - an equivalently fowl metaphor, but somewhat more apt. — unenlightened

But the Dodo was driven to extinction by the Portuguese. It's not the Dodo's fault that people wanted to eat them. They did not refuse to adapt, they were simply preyed upon by foreign predators.

— Arcane Sandwich

I am not familiar with Hegel and his work. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

5. The absolute is subject –

Φ 17. In my view – a view which the developed exposition of the system itself can alone justify – everything depends on grasping and expressing the ultimate truth not as Substance but as Subject as well. At the same time we must note that concrete substantiality implicates and involves the universal or the immediacy of knowledge itself, as well as that immediacy which is being, or immediacy qua object for knowledge. If the generation which heard God spoken of as the One Substance was shocked and revolted by such a characterisation of his nature, the reason lay partly in the instinctive feeling that in such a conception self-consciousness was simply submerged, and not preserved. But partly, again, the opposite position, which maintains thinking to be merely subjective thinking, abstract universality as such, is exactly the same bare uniformity, is undifferentiated, unmoved substantiality. And even if, in the third place, thought combines with itself the being of substance, and conceives immediacy or intuition (Anschauung) as thinking, it is still a question whether this intellectual intuition does not fall back into that inert, abstract simplicity, and exhibit and expound reality itself in an unreal manner.

6. – and what this is

Φ 18. The living substance, further, is that being which is truly subject, or, what is the same thing, is truly realised and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite. As subject it is pure and simple negativity, and just on that account a process of splitting up what is simple and undifferentiated, a process of duplicating and setting factors in opposition, which [process] in turn is the negation of this indifferent diversity and of the opposition of factors it entails. True reality is merely this process of reinstating self-identity, of reflecting into its own self in and from its other, and is not an original and primal unity as such, not an immediate unity as such. It is the process of its own becoming, the circle which presupposes its end as its purpose, and has its end for its beginning; it becomes concrete and actual only by being carried out, and by the end it involves. — Hegel

So you only enjoy intellectual activity!? — MoK

No, you do not. There is no joy in Heaven, you enjoy nothing.

I do but I also enjoy other things as well. — MoK

Which is why the essence of God is incomprehensible from the perspective of creatures, such as you and me.

By the way, how about other creatures, like animals? — MoK

They live in a zen-like state throughout their lives. For the most part. If they saw the Image of God, they would prefer that, and nothing else.

There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt. — unenlightened

Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors.

What do you mean by a subject here? — MoK

The same thing that Hegel means in The Phenomenology of Spirit, when he says that God is both substance and subject.

But the article you mentioned is only about the image of God and the act of creation of humans in it. — MoK

Let me speak clearly, Mok. There is no happiness in Heaven. And there is no beauty either. There is only the contemplation of the Image of God. There is nothing else to do. The souls of men and women that have entered Heaven do not engage in small talk amongst themselves. They are not catching up for old time's sake. There is only the contemplation of the Image of God. Everything else is worthless by comparison.

God is a substance. By change, I mean a change in the substance. — MoK

God is also a subject, as are we. A human being is both a substance and a subject.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Are you talking about the beatific vision? — MoK

No, I am not. If I was, I would have said so. The concept of beauty does not apply to God, in any way, shape, or form. Aesthetic notions do not apply to a divine being.

As intellectual agents, I don't think that there is anything to be known once we figure out everything. We could still have fun, have sex, drink fine wine, listen to music, smoke weed, etc. until we get used to everything, and living further turns into torture — MoK

In Heaven, the contemplation of God is preferable to anything else. There is no fun in Heaven. There is no sex in Heaven. There is no drinking in Heaven, and there are no fine wines (alcohol does not go to Heaven). There is no music in Heaven. There is no smoke in Heaven. There is no weed in Heaven.

There is only God, and the souls of men and women that have entered Heaven. There is nothing for these souls to do there, other than to stare at the Imago Dei for all eternity.

The US seems awfully backwards when it comes to metrics. — Wayfarer

But there's something else that everyone gets backwards, including myself, until very recently: how to correctly think about space in geo-political terms. Here is how I would explain it to someone of your philosophical knowledge:

Earth, as a planet, has four hemispheres: Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern. Yet there are only two poles: the North Pole, and the South Pole. There is no West Pole. And there is no East Pole.

Think about it. Important consequences can be derived from these facts, concerning the very nature of geological poles.

Did I miss something or are you just exhibiting the same type of intellectual rabies as everyone else in this thread? — Tzeentch

Do I have intellectual rabies?

Could be. Why not? I'd like to know what @Count Timothy von Icarus thinks of your comment.

@Tzeentch is Hungarian?

Ok, then what was that point that you alluded to here?

Always :). A skeptic and a realist, though -- and thereby atheist. But this gets back to another point we haven't worked out and is way off topic from what is threatening to derail a good conversation I've been reading along with. Sorry about that, I just meant to answer the one question and then we got into a back and forth. — Moliere

Care to elaborate?

I just don't then go on to say that the belief is scientific or historical. — Moliere

Well, technically speaking, it wouldn't be a belief either. It would be a divine revelation.

Well, in one just-so story it's because there's a divinity within us all. In another it's because those are the social organisms which survived the process of primitive accumulation. — Moliere

Hegel says it's both. And it's also a third thing, which is their synthesis.

If at the level of science? No, certainly not. Not even at the level of history, except for pointing to a handful of examples I'm sure we're both familiar with. — Moliere

Then why should anyone, including yourself, believe in such a thing?

Always :). A skeptic and a realist, though -- and thereby atheist. But this gets back to another point we haven't worked out and is way off topic from what is threatening to derail a good conversation I've been reading along with. Sorry about that, I just meant to answer the one question and then we got into a back and forth. — Moliere

Derail it, since it is important. Besides, to use a metaphor: paraphrasing Ibn Arabi, your opinion is simply a drop of water from the ocean that is the Qur'an.

Hence, this need not be contradictory at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not even in a Hegelian way? As in:

1) Thesis, 2) anti-Thesis, 3) Synthesis.
A) Subject, B) Object, C) Absolute.
I) Mind, II) Nature, III) Culture.
i) Res cogitans, ii) Res extensa, iii) Res divina.
a) The Father, b) The Son, c) The Holy Ghost.
.) Judaism, ..) Christianity, ...) Islam.

Etc.

I'm not sure about that. — Moliere

Ok, you're a skeptic then.

What if the reason people adopt a text has more to do with who controls the grain? — Moliere

It would be a scientific problem to investigate.

Seems common that religions spread with conquest. — Moliere

And that would be your scientific hypothesis.

Can you prove it?

I mean that people would not dismiss Tolkien's works as a story only because he was a Catholic. — Moliere

It's a Catholic story.

The text can be read as an allegory and treated as the sacred texts are. — Moliere

It's an allegory of Catholicism.

People today wouldn't treat them like that. — Moliere

Yes, they do. Catholics love Tolkien. Priests even compare Jesus to Gandalf. What Church people in general don't like, is Dungeons and Dragons (they think it's Satanic). But they like Tolkien.

But the phenomena has happened as recently as the early 1800's when Joseph Smith wrote The Book of Mormon and created a religion -- the book reads like the fan fiction of the Bible that it is. — Moliere

For all I know, The Book of Mormon could be a holy book, and Joseph Smith could be God incarnate. It's a similar case to Haile Selassie (former emperor of Ethiopia).

And yet, people derive meaning for their entire lives from it and connect to the Divine. — Moliere

Because they believe that it is a holy book. Is it? Yes or no?

What's different there? The lack of a spokesperson for the text as divine, for one -- Tolkien does not say his text is divine. — Moliere

He doesn't need to.

But you can surely see how if not Tolkien some work of fiction, today, could become a sacred text tomorrow because that's already happened before. — Moliere

Tolkien was a Catholic. Catholicity is divine universality, as distinct from secular universality.

Then you haven't understood Ibn Arabi's ↪point, then. — Arcane Sandwich


Fair. — Moliere

Please try to understand it.

That's part of the awe. — Moliere

The awe of what, if not the divine? The Cartesian res divina, instead of the res cogitans or the res extensa.

But you know that's not all that's in there. There's more to it than the Psalms. There are histories, mythologies, family trees, -- it's the very stuff of human imagination and care. — Moliere

And you don't think that any of that is of a divine nature?

It means that how we read a book makes the meaning different, and the reader is where I'd be inclined to pinpoint the difference. — Moliere

Then you haven't understood Ibn Arabi's , then.

Does that mean some 2000 years later people couldn't read his work in awe of the imagination of the people of the 21'st century? — Moliere

Only to the extent that human imagination has a divine nature, not a physical nature. The imagination of the res cogitans is only the secular version of the imagination of the res divina.

Say the Catholic church dissipates in that time. — Moliere

Who cares? The Catholic church is just an institution. It's a human construct. Divinity is not.

But when we approach the Bible we approach it like it has some hidden wisdom within, and derive meaning from that reading. I think it's much the same as how we read poems and watch plays -- it's a deep interpretation between ourselves and the text. With Tolkien we treat the exercise in imagination as a game, but not so with the Bible. — Moliere

I don't know what that means.

Arcane Sandwich
If only I had a very good distinction, then I'd have started there.

Tolkien I'd be inclined to call "just literature" -- a story for fun.

The difference as I see it is in how we approach the text. So in some future perhaps Tolkien's works could form the basis of a religion after the reality of the text's production are long forgotten. — Moliere

No, Tolkien was a Catholic.

Also I see value in trying to understand the past which we came from, so that alone makes the Bible more valuable -- it's one of the early documents. It sheds insight into human nature just by that fact. — Moliere

With that in mind, look at this part:

21
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen. — Psalm 22:1

It's talking about a memory as ancient as the Paleolithic, when everyone was a nomadic hunter-gatherer. This makes it more ancient than anything anyone else has to say. Bring your favorite poets to this discussion, quote Emily D. for all I care. I believe what Psalm 22:1, part 21 says: There was a time when lions were our natural predators, there was a time when the wild oxen could kill us when we were just minding our own business.

Care to explain the difference?

It's just not scientific truth, or historical truth as I see it. — Moliere

Then what is it? It's not "just literature", I can tell you that much.

No, we are not worthy of worship. — Moliere

I'm an atheist. Am I forced to agree with you? Do I have to "get along" with you, as you yourself say?

That's sort of the central bit I'd start with in talking about the divine: to me life is sacred — Moliere

Then it is worthy of worship, by the literal definition of the word "sacred".

"getting along" includes killing. It demands it. — Moliere

No, it does not. You're wrong. For a creature is not obligated to do what it does not want to do. And a creature ought not do what a creature is not. And being a creature, it ought not do what it is.

Those who ignore their duty to note kill are deluded, by this ethic, living in the clouds. — Moliere

They call him "Jesus Christ", sure. And they call Gandalf Gandalf. — Moliere

What's wrong with living in the clouds? That's where many creatures live. Birds, for example. Are you against birds, now?

I'll tell you what I'm against. I'll let Psalm 22 tell you about it. It's also the difference between Jesus and Gandalf:

6
But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8
“He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9
Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11
Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12
Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13
Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15
My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16
Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.
17
All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18
They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.

19
But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20
Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen. — Psalm 22:1

It's called Appeal to nature, Moliere. It's a fallacy. And yes: Jesus Christ preached that truth when he was alive.

We have to get along -- but it's an earthly existence, and not a heavenly one. — Moliere

Who says that we have to get along? Creatures kill each other. We are creatures. Why should we not kill each other? I'll tell you why: because it would be a naturalistic fallacy to suppose that creatures ought to do what creatures are.

Do you know who preached that truth, among other people?

Yeah. They call him "Jesus Christ".

Almost like it's being told by a group of people who want to one-up eachother on just how holy Jesus was. — Moliere

You say that like there's something wrong with it. Is there? Philosophically speaking.

Why wouldn't they be? The word "pathetic" is etymologically rooted in the word "pathos", which means passion. — Arcane Sandwich


If he is then he's not worthy of worship, right? — Moliere

"he", who? Jesus Christ? Yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a Christian would tell you. And yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a Muslim would tell you. And yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a polytheist would tell you. And yes, he's worthy of worship, is what a pantheist would tell you.

What would the atheist tell you?

Think of it like this, Moliere. We've become accustomed to the idea that God incarnate (i.e., Jesus Christ) should be a sort of Nietzschean Over-man. He wasn't. Jesus Christ was a man. Are you not familiar with the the concept of the Passion of Jesus?

heh, prophets. — Moliere

Others might accuse you of a Freudian slip. Luckily for you, I don't believe in pseudoscience.

If so then the gods I see are a little bit pathetic ;) — Moliere

Why wouldn't they be? The word "pathetic" is etymologically rooted in the word "pathos", which means passion.

The subject of the work isn't God as much as humanity. — Moliere

Maybe polytheism encompasses all of humanity, as the Rastafari religion argues.

I've attended Islamic service and that's where my knowledge of Muhammed and Jesus both being profits in Islam comes from — Moliere

"Profits" or prophets, mate?

From my perspective it's because performing miracles is a trope of the literature -- the Buddha also performed miracles in various stories. What it does is differentiate the character from the rest in the story so that you know you should listen to them as a font of special wisdom. Also I think these are features of the stories for the more literally minded who will shrug at doing virtue for its own reward, but when put in earthly terms like magic which fulfills desires and other earthly, human rewards then the more literally minded will understand. — Moliere

Or perhaps anyone who performs miracles has, or is, a res divina, either wholly or in part, in addition to having, or being, a res cogitans as well as a res extensa. If so, then it could be the case that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and that Haile Selassie (former emperor of Ethiopia) is also God incarnate, and perhaps even Muhammed is also God incarnate. How can that be? Well, a polytheist might argue that, for example. Polytheism should be taken just as seriously as monotheism, atheism, and pantheism.

John the Scott said no, Aquinas said "of course". The former was condemned — Gregory

John the Scott was right, Aquinas was wrong.

Regardless, the claim that God's essence requires eternal contemplation requires proof that I am not aware of any. — MoK

Well, what else would there be to do in Heaven? Nothing, really.

That's not really true. English is technically Germanic, as being rooted that way historically, but the Latin influence over time is so significant that it's false to say that English has nothing to do with Latin. — Metaphysician Undercover

Cry me a river, Anglo-Saxon. Spanish is essentially Latin, while English is only accidentally Latin.

I know that generally speaking Jesus is considered to be a prophet like Muhammed was a prophet -- so I'm inclined to read "We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs" as saying he's on par with Muhammed, but not God. — Moliere

In Islam, it is a truth that Jesus performed miracles, so did Muhammed. The composition of the Qur'an itself was Muhammed's miracle. In Cartesian terms, how is this possible if Jesus and Muhammed are only a duality of res cogitans and res extensa, without being also res divina, either wholly or in part?

This might interest you:

The beginning of culture and of the struggle to pass out of the unbroken immediacy of naive psychical life has always to be made by acquiring knowledge of universal principles and points of view, by striving, in the first instance, to work up simply to the thought of the subject-matter in general, not forgetting at the same time to give reasons for supporting it or refuting it, to apprehend the concrete riches and fullness contained in its various determinate qualities, and to know how to furnish a coherent, orderly account of it and a responsible judgment upon it. This beginning of mental cultivation will, however, very soon make way for the earnestness of actual life in all its fullness, which leads to a living experience of the subject-matter itself; and when, in addition, conceptual thought strenuously penetrates to the very depths of its meaning, such knowledge and style of judgment will keep their due place in everyday thought and conversation. — Hegel

The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah — The Qur'an

And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. — The Qur'an

I see these two claims as contradictory, in a Hegelian way.