The very common notion that science is leading us step by step towards an ever better future is 19th century thinking in my view. — Jake

IMO the application of science - Technology - is driven by inherently human drives - mostly power and money - but occasionally and to a lesser degree - altruism. Technology, as the application of science, can not escape the human condition with all the good and bad that that entails.

yea - agree not sure the concept summarizes very well. And I find it a very difficult and slow read. But i will take a pass at it.

by " absolute and limitless transcendence " he is IMO referring to this part:

"For Rabner excessus represents preapprehension
or Vorgriff, the unthematized grasp of the "Infinite Horizon" that is God
before it is thematized in words and images. There is an
interrelationship in his method between a priori and a posteriori
knowledge and experience. "

Where he believes we have a " a priori" transcendental knowledge that there is some undefined yet very real horizon of "infinite knowledge". We can not define it or even understand it - but we all have an innate knowledge that it is there -

Not sure that helps much - probably do to my inability to communicate it well

However, if we want to improve our lives and learn about the universe, that is impossible when we believe fairy tales. If it makes you happy and gives your life meaning, fine — TogetherTurtle

have no issue in general with your point - but language like this is pejorative and IMO should be avoided.

Thanks - again not sure i did a very good job of explaining Rahner's point - sorry the long cut and paste - but thought I would put a more professional explanation here for those who might find it interesting.


Asking, .. What does God mean for the modern person?" Rahner
strove to reinterpret theology in the light of modem thought. His work
was motivated by two goals:

to make theology intellectually respectable

and to make it serve the broadest interests of Christian faith and life.

Like Kant, he starts with the human subject and the possibility of
knowledge. He examines the human experience of knowledge as the
experience of absolute and limitless transcendence. His method
combines philosophy and cultural analysis to look at the world from an
existentialist perspective.

Referred to as a transcendental Thomist, Rahner was deeply
influenced by Aquinas's theology and in particular the notion that all
knowledge has a priori conditions of possibility. Prompted by Kant,
he asks, "Is it possible to know what is ultimately real?" Inspired by
Aquinas, he asks, "Is it possible to gain knowledge of the non-sensible
God?" Departing from Kant's ontology and his axiom that all human
knowledge necessarily refers to sensible intuitions, Rahner wants to
interrogate the possibility of metaphysics. He sees the ability to reach
ultimate truth through what Aquinas calls excessus ( excess), which is
nothing more than the condition that makes it possible for humanity to
experience the world.

For Rabner excessus represents preapprehension
or Vorgriff, the unthematized grasp of the "Infinite Horizon" that is God
before it is thematized in words and images. There is an
interrelationship in his method between a priori and a posteriori
knowledge and experience. The theologian Karl-Heinz Weger notes
that for Rahner "the term a priori points to something in man that is
already present and previously gi~ something, in other words. that
has not simply been acquired on the basis of experience ... All
knowledge, however, is a posteriori knowledge, because without a
posteriori experiences, the person inhabits nothing that can be known
about his/her a priori constitution. The a priori constitutes our ability
to transcend a posteriori experiences. which are the reality of ~everyday
experiences in the world. The a priori aspect of our knowledge is not
constituted by a posteriori reality. )

We can only experience what we do because we always see out world in the light of a transcendental a
priori. Rabner presupposes within human nature the a priori grasp of
being itself within which metaphysical objects can be known. He
seeks to demonstrate that this human a priori brings about a person's
fundamental experience of God.

Rahner insists on the transcendental nature of human existence
while always keeping the historicity of finite existence in mind. In his
conception, the human being is historical precisely as a transcendent
subject. Asking what existence is in itself, he argues that while
human experience may give answers, it cannot by itself make human
existence intelligible. Finite human beings are present to themselves as
a question and as such open to endless possibilities. The moment we
become aware of our finitude, we have already surpassed it. We
become aware of God as the Infinite Horizon of our consciousness. By
starting with what Weger calls .. modem man's actual experiences,"
Rahner' s methodology breaks with traditional Catholic theology. He
makes anthropology the beginning of his theology.

Will have to respectfully disagree, hope someday to elevate to work in progress, but not there yet. Appreciate the kind words - thank you

thanks - i think what Rahner was saying is, it is a part of human nature to seek for this meaning, for some explanation of why we are here, and and for some higher meaning than that which is rooted in our earthly existence. He believes this quest is based on all of us, even if we are unaware of it, having some inherent fundamental or base knowledge that such a thing does exist.

We can all get very caught up in words. Especially very loaded words with many different meanings to different people and some which cause some immediate emotional reaction. God is certainly one of those. While i understand that definitions are important, as a means to communication, I am more concerned about the concept.

The concept here is, it is difficult to make a reasoned argument against the proposition that man has some in inherent need for knowledge, and understanding. And he has some need for understanding his purpose. And as far as i am aware of them, all of the philosophical attempts to define such meaning, that does not include something "God Like" are unconvincing. If it is existentialism, absurdity, hedonism, nihilism - none seem to convincing - at least to me, and I believe in general. The best individual answers i have heard on this point - tend to be a kind of secular spirituality. One that are focused on love of others, on some selflessness. Which I wont argue against, but always seem rather God centered to me - just without the God.

just making a joke, Camus- absurd- get it ?

Been looking at some Karl Rahner writing last few days. So in speaking to a person who claimed they had never experienced God.

"I don’t believe you; I just don’t accept that. You have had, perhaps, no experience of God under this precise code-word God but you have had or have now an experience of God – and I am convinced that this is true of every person."

What he was referring to, was a concept of his theology called "pre- apprehension". Pre apprehension is the concept that it is man’s nature to search for the infinite, because he is either totally or partly, aware of its existence. This implicit knowledge is the base for knowing all things. Rahner would describe what we explicitly know of the universe as an island floating on a sea of a preapprehed knowledge of all we do not yet understand, but are aware of its existence. Man is a creature in the boundary between the physical world we inhabit and the infinite world we are innately aware of.

I am not aware of a good argument that can dismiss this very natural part of the human condition. Camus called this desire absurd, and that was an outgrowth of existentialism which says we can define this for ourselves.

I understand these ideas in the context of their times. The advent of mechanized warfare at the turn of the century, and 2 brutal wars, a genocide, and the dawn of nuclear destruction makes the prospect of such a thing as God difficult to believe.

But I do not find these arguments compelling against such a basic human desire.

Rahner's second point in the quote above, if by using the word God, we inject all kinds of meanings and assumptions. None of them true to him. To him, God is better defined as a mystery. Something we have an inate understanding that exists, but one we have no real understanding of.

Not sure I did that good a job on Rahner's theology here, I think I understand it better than I can articulate it. It is almost as much feeling as knowledge in me right now.

completely agree, I get narcissistic, egomaniacs exist, the fact that otherwise normal people voted and after all this, continue to support one for POTUS amazes me.

didn't read all of that, but guess I agree. Just kidding of course. I do agree in general with all of that. I do find some Gish gallop posts here, and they are frustrating. Also often get posts back with 15 questions, most rhetorical, and pejorative. In general I will persever for a post or 3 if I find the point important. Then just disengage, tell the counterparty they won, and move on.

Often I wonder if my reply to someone was actually read. Seems every so often they are more scaned than read. Looking for some word steam in them to be quoted back with an argument, often little to do with the idea in the post. It is the equivalent of not listening in a discussion, just thinking about what you are going to say next, and waiting for the other person to stop making noise so you can talk again. It all stems from the same issue in my opinion. It comes from the objective being trying to win an argument instead of participating in an exchange of ideas.

thanks will do

All - sorry all the misspellings it is Rahner, no particular good excuse, mea culpa

Words can easily get in the way. As example, if we ask "what is the right way for me to see God" the word God immediately brings to mind a collection of images in Western culture that may be helpful, or may be a fatal distraction. That's why I'm often arguing for ignorance, clearing the mind of theories and conclusions to assist in facilitating experience. Each of us can reach for experiences that transcend the mundane, and there is really no need to then label and categorize the experience. I'm not sure what part of Catholic teaching might address any of this, perhaps you point to something? — Jake

Jake - sorry this took so long. Maybe the best I have seen on this point is from Karl rathner he refers to God as Mystery, a mystery we are inherently aware of, but unable to completely know. This mystery is not separate from us, but a part of us and everything else.

By contrast with Camus, who argues this inherent search for meaning is absurd, Rahner argued that this unquenchable questioning was not absurd, but rather a constitutive feature of human nature, drawing us toward that holy mystery named God. Rather calls this a pre- knowledge, we all are aware of the infinite, we know it is there, even if we don't admit it.

I did a very poor job on this slight touch into rahner's theology, but if it is a topic that interests you he is someone you should look into.

Again, I am not an evangelist, but if I was, this quote from Rahner would be the kind of evangelist I would want to be.

“It is by entering into the world of today, and being with men in their difficulties, their anxieties and doubts, that we can bring this world to faith, and not by posing as somehow different. . . . Our faith must be such that even the unbeliever cannot deny that here a man believes who is like himself, a man of today, on whose lips the word God does not come easily and cheaply, who doesn’t think he has mastered everything, and in spite of all this, rather because of all this, he believes.

“For Christianity is not a formula which makes everything clear, but the radical submission of myself to an incomprehensible Mystery Who has revealed Himself as ineffable love.”

Banno
4.7k
The error in Camus, and the reason I would not count him as an existentialist, is that he insists that meaning is to be found. — Banno

he didn't count himself as an existentialist either

Here is the full quote:

"THERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.

These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect. "

Camus was pointing to the absurdity of what appears a human need to seek meaning in life, and his belief that there is none. So as he looked and found no meaning the question was why should one continue to desire to live, especially difficult lives of toil and sorrow, if there was no purpose. Why continue to push the rock up the hill?

Camus said many of us, me included, perform all kinds of philosophic suicides to reconcile this absurdity. I find purpose in a religious belief, others fine meaning if various forms of hedonism, others feel since there is no meaning, they can define their own. Camus would call all of these a type of suicide.

Camus answer was "The Absurd Hero" his hero has the ability of both fight and accept the absurdity of life and at the same time, to find meaning in the moment. I have no clue how one does that. Sisyphus, as his hero, is smiling as he pushes the rock up the hill.

So if I use your number line above . . . -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4

Lets set the big bang at 0, and call it T0. So right now there is near unanimous scientific consensus for everything that has happened since literally a very small fraction of a second after T0.

Before that fraction of a second before T0, there is more fractured support, but still the overwhelming scientific view right now is the Universe is finite, there was nothing ( please lets not have 25 comments of what nothing is), there were no negative numbers. There is zero scientific consensus that i am aware of that on what the initial cause was.

But right now, in 2019, the existing science is the universe is finite, it had a beginning , and we don't know what caused the beginning.

And everything one would propose, no matter how scientific sounding it is, that says anything else - is an argument against the best current existing science.

Therefore, our theories must be limited by it. What if there's ''other'' stuff that exist that would require a new theory which I guess would also be ''just'' another approximation. — TheMadFool

could quite possibly be the best single quote about science i have read on the board.

Could it be that Einstein's theory is just another ''approximation'' of reality like Newton's theory? — TheMadFool

yes and every other theory in physics you have heard is an approximation of reality by definition. At the core all physics is is a mathematical model of some reality or observation. By definition this is an approximation. Some of them are very very very good approximations, some not quite as good.

I think math is a tool to describe reality just as physics is. — Noah Te Stroete

actually all physics is, at its core, is a mathematical model of some reality or observation. Which then allows you to change the variables and make predictions. Then test those predictions experimentally to see if the math is actually predictive. If so, great you may have a workable model, if no - can it and try another one.

I wish. Not sure it is possible for humans to "truly love: everyone, and certainly not all the time. I sure know I can't.

Think we are getting to a point of diminished returns on the discussion - just kind of saw that aspect of desire and suffering a significant part of Ignatian Spirituality, thought would share - as just one more world view.

got it thanks

First, love is simply an emotional disposition towards things, right? A very complex and variable emotional disposition (enough so that it's probably not a good idea to tag such a wide range of things with the same term), but it's an emotional disposition nonetheless. So it would just be a matter of having that emotional disposition towards oneself (and others, possibly, including the prostitute) when engaging in prostitution/solicitation. — Terrapin Station

if someone could truly and honestly in their heart believe that I would agree. I can't see how that is possible - but I admit i could have a blind spot there.

Do you really think it is possible for someone to truly love the prostitute and for the prostitute to truly love the john and it not be Richard Gere and Julia Roberts ?? Guess it is possible and in that case no one is suffering.

I was trying to imagine ways that it might make sense to say that someone is "lying to themselves." — Terrapin Station

yea - My posit was they really can't. how is your calling you not being able to think of a way they can a fortiori an argument back against that? I don't see it.

No, a fortiori because I don't buy the notion of unconscious mental content. — Terrapin Station

What concept in our discussion would you say in "unconscious mental content" I don't see, suffering, desire, or love meeting a criteria of some kind of a priori unconscious mental content. I think there a general conscious understandings of what such things as those are.

So I don't see how that would make prostitution an unordered desire — Terrapin Station

can you explain to me how prostitution increases love of yourself or of others? I may well be too deeply entrenched in my own point of view to think of one. I just don't see a lot of love involved for either self or others in the exchange of money for sex.

In the secular maybe, depending on your belief if we can in our deepest most honest selves actually lie to ourselves. I don't think we can. Do you think you can lie to yourself and not know it? I don't mean rationalize - we are all great at that. Can you actually believe you are acting out of pure love and be not be ? I may need to think some on that - but i cant see how that is possible.

Okay, so how do we determine whether a desire "increases love" or not? — Terrapin Station

If in your most honest self that is your pure motivation. ( that is the my attempt at a secular answer)

The Jesuit answer would be something called "a discernment of spirits". Is the source of the desire, feeling, emotion etc God, or some of evil. I understand that is not a very philosophical answer.

of course they can. no one acts on every desire - good or bad. If your point is there is no suffering without action. I agree, just not particularly profound. We are back to the hammer an nail.

So we need to understand that distinction to understand what suffering is. — Terrapin Station

no we don't we just need to define suffering. I would hope some garden variety general understanding of suffering would do.

There is nothing circular here.

Ordered desires ( those that increase love ) = no suffering
disordered desires = suffering

the relationship is causal - not circular

From that point, you can make a decision to drive the nail or not. — Terrapin Station

think this point from above addresses this point.

" As far as " they could make a different decision" that again, for me comes down to if the desire is ordered or not, there is no good option, just less bad ones, to fulfill a disordered desire, except to eliminate or control the desire itself. "

If one does not act on the desire than there is no suffering. However that does not eliminate the desire as causal in the cases where it is acted on.

Re defining suffering with respect to ordered/disordered desires and then making the part of the ordered/disordered desire distinction a reference to suffering, that's pretty shallowly circular. — Terrapin Station

Don't see where i did any of that. What seems circular is you saying I proposed something circular and then said it was circular.

What I proposed was, disordered desires lead to suffering . And I only defined ordered desires as those that increase love in yourself or in others. I see nothing circular there - unless i am missing your point.

It is possible that God doesn't function on such things as 'needs' and 'motivation'....but human connection with god often is based upon a conception or model of god, which inevitably will be partly human based.

The concept of need is pretty fundamental to humans though, and is the bases of all/most behaviour, so if any attempt is made to form a model of god, then perhaps these things are a good starting point. — wax

I have no issue with any of that, and in fact do a great deal of it myself in one way or another. But the point is, that is theology not philosophy. Again i have no issue at all with theology - quite the contrary - but it is an important point for both theist and atheist to know when they are leaving one discipline and entering another.

I don't want to get rid of prostitution. I want to get rid of the absurdity of it being illegal. — Terrapin Station

absolutely agree that legalizing prostitution would make prostitution legal. Not sure that is any great insight. My point was it would not make the desire to use one any more ordered, ( don't read religious here - not the intent) Much of the suffering that is part of prostitution would still remain at least IMO legal or not. As in gambling, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc etc.

The carpenter has to apply physical force to the hammer, though. — Terrapin Station

and to me this all starts with the desire to drive the nail.

I was positing the existence of a god with no personal needs and asking people what the motivation for their behaviour would be... — wax

and on what possible basis could we defend as reasonable anything at all we could say on our guesses on what motivation or behavior mean for such a thing as God.

Not sure this is your point or objective, but there is a tried and true argument that people have used forever. They give God some anthropomorphic quality, and then proceed to argue that either having it or not having it is not very God like. And the philosophic problem with all such arguments is there no basis at all to give such a thing as God such anthropomorphic quality in the first place.

But if you take the general case of a desire being based on something which isn't disorders, it still might lead to a disordered attempt to try and fulfil it... — wax

been thinking, and at least with my frame of reference - I cant think of an example of the above.

I think there is always some disordered desire at play that causes the suffering.

an example:

Jean Valjean's family is starving, they desire food ( taking a small liberty here for sake of argument - but such things as food, water and shelter I would describe as needs and not desires ). Jean being a loving father and seeing no other way - steals a loaf of bread. Gets caught and undergoes great suffering. First pass would say is desire to feed his family was ordered and I would agree. Even giving the benefit of the doubt that there was absolutely no other way to feed them other than stealing. I would propose the baker who would not give the bread to the needy has a disordered desire of money over charity. I would say the government and prosecutors and jailers had a disordered desire of punishment over forgiveness.

I'd say the desires do not cause that specific suffering. What would cause it is someone falsely imprisoning someone else or criminally threatening them. Whatever reason they decide to do those things if they do is another issue. They could make a different decision. — Terrapin Station

think I have to respectfully disagree with the above. I would still propose the disordered desires are the proximate cause off the suffering. "whatever reason they decide" seems an important concept to me. Certainly not one to be so easily dismissed with out reason. As far as " they could make a different decision" that again, for me comes down to if the desire is ordered or not, there is no good option, just less bad ones, to fulfill a disordered desire, except to eliminate or control the desire itself.

It seems you are saying the hammer drives the nail and ignoring the carpenter swinging the hammer.

Re that decision, by the way, the issue would be easily dissolved if we would simply legalize prostitution. — Terrapin Station

not sure there is very good evidence to support this. Legalized gambling hasn't prevented folks gambling away the mortgage, legalized alcohol hasn't prevented alcoholism, etc etc. It may make it easier to tax, it may do any number of other things, but what it won't do is turn a disordered desire into an ordered one.

But none of this makes desires sufficient for suffering. — Terrapin Station

Am I correct that what you are saying here is there is no link between the desire to pay the coerced and trapped woman and the desire of money to enslave them - and the suffering of the people involved ??

As I mentioned, or hinted at, in my first post in this thread, I don't understand why we wouldn't focus on pain when we talk about suffering rather than focusing on desire. I can't really make sense out of saying that not having a desire met is sufficient for suffering when we also use the term "suffering" for, say, someone who has just been in a serious car accident and who now has a sharp piece of metal going through their trapped leg--especially where it's supposedly not a different sense of the term. — Terrapin Station

How about something like this. Robert Kraft and millions like him have what I would call a disordered desire when it come to sex. To satiate this desire they are willing to walk into strip mall massage parlors and exchange money for sex. To fulfill the demand for this disordered desire, other people with an equally disordered desire for money find ways to entrap vulnerable women into working in these places.

I would propose that the disordered desires above are causing great suffering - to the women, to the people entrapping/enslaving the women and to all the Robert Krafts that pay the woman.