I had a 2 year old post on this, Turing and Wittgenstein quarreled over the law of non contradiction

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7296/page/p1


To briefly summarize what l have understood from this is that , mathematical operations do not depend on agreed meaning but an agreed use.
Further more , if we agree to use p and ~p --> p OR let p and ~p --> ~p . The problem of being stuck after facing a contradiction is solved.

In my reading, Nietzsche is very much a systematic thinker. The eternal return of the same does not refer to a repeating cycle in which the contents of one’s lived memories are lived again the very same way. On the contrary , eternal return of the same is the return of the same absolutely different. What repeats itself is absolute novelty , always in a new way. This is why Nietzsche does not believe that science progresses, that it represents, mirrors or corresponds to an external reality. The only reality is that of the incessantly changing relation of the drives to each other.

As Nietzsche says,

“ Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren’t
we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn’t enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well? I do not mean
comprehensible as a deception, a “mere appearance,” a “representation” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer); I mean it might allow us to understand the mechanistic world as belonging to the same plane of
reality as our affects themselves –, as a primitive form of the world of affect…”( Genealogy of Morals)



Will to power is not the desiring to possess power by a freely willing autonomous subject. The ‘subject’ is a fractured community of competing drives, and power flows through it rather than being possessed by it. Each of these drives within the psyche is its own will to power, and it is their tension that is the creative force of genius l.

“Everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn,
overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated." Geneology of Morality)

Will to power is in the service of the eternal return by being differential and multiple, transforming the arts, politics and the sciences through the constant clashes of the drives. The idea of a political class maintaining control is antithetical to the anarchic spirit of will to power. — Joshs

I don't see how the passage of Nietzsche is against progress in science. New ideas do dominate and obliterate past mistakes in science but this doesn't challenge the notion of progress. It's difficult to think Nietzsche didn't see the incredible practicality of science in industry, which bears some sort of testimony to the continual improvement of our understanding of the world. I don't know if you have read Feyeraband, a famous post modernist who tried to undermined the idea of progress in science. Thankfully, other philosophers called him out and in this age, everyone can spot the sickening tendency of post modernism to entangle science in the realm of complete subjectivity. But if you turn to arts and philosophy, there's no point in making the argument that there's no progress, as it is the majority view of the historians of philosophy/art

I am not surprised you tried to reduce the "will to power" to merely a mental phenomenon which should be subject to psychoanalysis. It's funny how Nietzsche doesn't mention will to power in the paragraph you have quoted. You want to conflate inner mental drives with will to power and ofcourse it's important to mention the fragmented self. I'm sure Nietzsche pictured a mentally tormented lonely postmodernist loser in his mind when he thought of will to power. NO, will to power manifests in the form of Goethe, Lord Byron, Napoleon and everyone in history who shaped the world with the sheer force of personality & genius. Have you ever wondered why Nietzsche admired Paul despite his clear disdain for Christians. Paul managed to subvert Greco Roman values and reorder the world with new values

How does your interpretation of Nietzsche explain his desire to enslave a great number of people for the sake of an elitist culture ?

Nietzsche literally advocates for slavery and many are other horrible practices in this book, the Greek state. It's also one of his earliest work, so you can't accuse his sister of tempering it

:lol:

The queen getting fucked isn't a nice sight. The Royal family is only good for hiding pedophiles. If it were up to me, l would mutilate her....

Read his book, "The Greek state"

You say postmodern thinkers reinterpret his ideas for their postmodern projects. This is precisely what every Nietzsche scholar or non-scholar does. There is no way to know what Nietzsche had to say without already interpreting him through one’s own perspective, which will likely line up with the perspective of one of a group of notated Nietzsche scholars. You don’t think Leiter filters Nietzsche through his own brand of modernist realism?

Nietzsche was situated in the modern era and we can easily distinguish interpretation from reinterpretation being used for some broader project.

It is impossible to know what Nietzsche is saying about slavery without first understanding eternal recurrence and will to power. These are the means of decoding his views on all subjects.

I don't think Nietzsche is a systematic thinker so it's not possible to present his ideas in a packaged form but will to power and other concepts do have a direct relation to his stance on slavery. Will to power in my interpretation, amounts to exercising influence and transforming the world by forcing your system of values/ideals on the world. Eternal resurrection means you should live life in such a manner that you should wish/be glad to experience life as whole in repetition for eternity. A high culture is the the manifestation of will to power, which can only be exercised by the elite in it's full meaning. So its neccessary to enslave the rest of people, so they don't become an obstacle in path of self realization of the ubermensch

How do the new trends and values relate to those of the eras that precede them? With regard to the sciences in particular, does Einstein add cumulatively to the sum of knowledge in physics, or is Relativity a qualitative transformation of previous physics that can’t be considered a linear progress? Is Einstein great because he brings science closer to understanding the way things really are , or because he simply ushers ina new perspective? For Nietzsche, the greatness of a scientist is not on how accurately they represent reality but in their ability to break free of the herd, as well as their eagerness to see their theories crushed.

I don't think Nietzsche had sufficient knowledge of physics to know how it's technically impossible to break free of the herd but l am sure he didn't mean it in a strict sense. Linear progress doesn't necessarily conflict with independent reasoning, as it can take genius to see the "next" step. Einstein's used the work of Riemann and Poincaré as inspiration for GR, so it's usually a combination of independent reasoning and following the herd which produces work of genius. I can see how this is also true for artist and philosophers alike since they are located in a specific zeitgeist.

That sounds like a silly argument. There are plenty of conservative Christian institutions in the U.S. where such readings of Nietzsche would probably be welcome. Of the authors you mentioned I’m familiar with Brian Leiter. He reads Nietzsche as a modernist, existentialist and realist. This interpretation is more accessible to most people than the postmodern reading, because it doesnt require them to understand postmodern thought.

It's more of a remark and you are against the interpretation of Nietzsche as an anti egalitarian , anti democratic autocratic thinker, in line with my prediction. I don't think we should bother with postmodern thinkers as they don't interpret Nietzsche, they reinterpret his ideas/work for their postmodern projects. I am more concerned with knowing what Nietzsche had to say, without adding my own content, which the postmodernist do.

I’m not bothered by what Leiter’s
reading says in particular about Nietzsche’s approach to slavery. Rather, I think it completely misses what is most exciting, daring and radical about his work. For me the larger question is whether you have any acquaintance with the Nietzsche depicted by Heidegger, Derrida , Foucault , Deleuze or other postmodernists. If you don’t know what they claim to be his main thesis (for instance , what is Will to Power , Eternal Return of the Same and their relation to each other) then you are not in a position to ‘prefer’ your reading to an alternative you have no familiarity with.

As you can probably guess from my name, my background is in analytic philosophy ( OLP in particular ) . I won't even pretend to have read the work of Heidegger as it's incomprehensible and l would be surprised if you have read being and time. I am familiar with the work of Foucault but you can quote the "interpretation" of the philosophers you have listed and we'll see if it's really an interpretation. But make sure it's on the topic of slavery since we are not concerned about eternal resurrection, will to power etc as concepts in of themselves

Do you have the slightest idea what would constitute the ‘crème de la crème’ for Nietzsche in terms of specific values, beliefs, taste in music and art?
Do you think he would embrace any of the specific arts, sciences or political forms that you consider to be superior? Here’s a hint: No.
This is simply because Nietzsche does not advocate for any particular content when it comes to forms of cultural creativity. On the contrary, he advocates for the endless overturning of specific cultural values , which includes all particular creative content

Physicist recognized the greatness of Einstein, mathematicians recognized the greatness of Grothendieck, logicians recognized the greatness of Gödel. Painters recognized the greatness of Picasso. Linguist recognized the greatness of Chomsky. You don't need to specify the content of art, science, philosophy to make the argument that there's a clear hierarchy of percieved importance in the eyes of those who are most capable of offering a judgment, ie the experts themselves.

Any student of history and culture knows that, each era brings forth new trends, values, ideas so it's stupid to fix greatness to a particular art,science,philosophy form. You should have understood why l didn't specify the content of high art form. My argument still stands, the system of elite artists/scientists/philosophers is capable of finding genius, just as Russell recognized the genius in Wittgenstein, who would go on to disagree with his mentor. Most people don't need a university education, the entry criterion to a elite university/institution/academy should be made sufficiently difficult that only those who are capable of producing work of genius gain entry into it. In fact, the education system itself should cater to the needs/training of geniuses at the expense of common people. When everyone is capable of getting a degree/certificate/qualification/title, you know education has been dumbed down

If you are nobility, then l am the second coming of Robespierre

The Queen for all l care is an old decrepit whore who deserves to be shot in the head for being a nuisance. It's a shame she represents the image of nobility in the UK. The noble class consists of great dictators ( Cesar for eg ) , military leaders ( Hannibal Barca for eg ), epoch defining thinkers (philosophers, scientists & artists ). You can include sportsmen ( free solo rock climbers ) who reflect the valor of ancient gladiators. Great actors and directors ( eg Brando and Stanley Kubrick ) should also be included

Contemporary "musicians" for the most part produce commercialized music. This explains the deplorable state of art. Music should not be made for commercial success . The state should be a patron to great musicians ( the music doesn't need to be classical ) and let them produce great art. The common people will obviously benefit from this in the long run. A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society

Check the work of Julian Young, Brian Lieter, Thomas Hurka.If l get the opportunity , l will collect a list of all scholars with reference, past and present who share the same interpretation of Nietzsche as me

Examples include - using physical strength and height to intimidate other people (especially women), hatred of gay people; hyper masculinity - sexually inappropriate towards women; use of violence (or threats thereof) to influence behavior or punish others; inability to access and fear of emotions (except aggression and anger).

The same was true of man in 1900s, 1800s, 1700s, .... back to the stone age. I don't see why there's a need to change the mass behavior of men suddenly. Asshole behavior is a side product of masculinity. This doesn't mean a masculine man can't be a nice guy but once you demonize the side product, masculinity self destructs gradually

Modernity has undoubtedly reduced the demand of traditional masculine value/skills in society but l don't see how it's possible to separate the alleged "toxic" masculine behavior from masculinity. It's a naive way of looking at our biological behavior.

That said, l admire Greek/Persian culture for promoting the androgynous Man as the ideal. An ideal man should possess feminine beauty and and adorn it with masculine strength

If we should want to have a charitable look at the argument, maybe we should let the man speak for himself, since he did happen to make this exact argument in the greek state which boils down to this:

1. Life, suffering etc, can ultimately only be justified through art.
2. Slavery is necessary to enable a few to focus on creating said art.

"In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority be slavishly subjected to life’s struggle, to a greater degree than their own wants necessitate. At their cost, through the surplus of their labor, that privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to
satisfy a new world of want."

Since 1) is essentially a value-judgement one maybe could just say that one doesn't care about art or high culture, and the rest of the argument looses its potency.

1. Suffering, the camel stage in our journey to self actualization is only felt incredibly in the beginning, though its essence is carried to the next stages. Nietzsche was dealing with the death of religion as a meaning giving tool in society and the dreadful emptiness of nihilism. Art for Nietzsche was supposed to play the role of religion. High culture is required to replace something as powerful and comprehensive as religion. The mice can't pretend to not see the cat.....

2) is more of a statement of fact that one could maybe discredit (or credit) on empirical grounds. Essentially he saying that 1) you need specialisation to be able to create good art 2) which requires that some are relieved from the daily struggle for existence 3) which in turn requires that a part of the population produces more/is forced to produce more than it needs for itself.

Maybe this could be true in ancient times, like Greece, but certainly this isn't true anymore in fossil-fueled post-industrialised societies. Because of the amount of energy per capita we have access to, we essentially have all the energy slaves we want, Energy can be translated directly into work, which basically could free up almost everybody to produce art if we wanted to.

2. I think you have missed the point. He didn't approve of egalitarianism as a value. Economic pragmatism of slavery wasn't a neccessary "evil" to him, it wasn't only a means to achieve high culture but an essential feature of any society which prized high culture. While slavery isn't making a return, we can avoid getting into the economics part of the argument and use Nietzschean elitist framework to undermine democracy, social activism, social security nets, employee rights, discrimination laws and every idea/practise in society which gives shape to an egalitarian outlook.

I would characterize Freddy Zarathustra as an advocate of Cultural (i.e. psychological-intellectual-artistic) Self-Mastery and not a defender of Civilizational (i.e. political economic) Slavery on the basis of teaching of Übermenschen bred (cultivated) to, as second nature, joyfully affirm (overcome the challenge of) the Eternal Recurrence of the Same (Ja-sagen "amor fati") contra decadent resentment (i.e. Nein-sagen "spirit of gravity") – Dionysius versus The Crucified :fire:

Special pleasing my ass. You really need to improve the quality of the Nietzsche interpreters you read. I have a shelf full of brilliant Nietzsche scholarship and none of it spouts the crap you’re referring to.

All l did was present the less politically correct, the less pussified interpretation of Nietzsche. I don't understand why it comes as a surprise to so many people, that their dear Nietzsche didn't mind slavery. He was an elitist through and through, he abhorred enlightenment inspired egalitarianism. Cultural self mastery, whatever it means here, it's simply out of reach for the vast majority of people in society unless there's a class of great individuals ( eg Goethe, Napoleon ) who are in charge of shaping civilizational outlook and this requires civilizational slavery in parallel.

Do you think a college professor will keep his job in this age if he spouts the elitist nonsense in my OP ? A few scholars have nevertheless dared to read Nietzsche as he ought to be read and l can drop their names in this thread but you will dismiss their interpretation.....

Toxic masculinity doesn't exist. It's a modernist phrase, invented to demonize men and behind all the facade, women still love tall handsome masculine man, biology doesn't lie.

Here's a video to demonstrate my reasoning

Don't bother with philosophy if you want to understand women. All you have to do is improve your looks + work on your body + be more neurotypical.

Whether or not a foetus has a right to life is the very thing being debated. And I would say that the woman's suffering very much is comparable, and at least in the early stages of pregnancy her rights take precedence of the foetus', just as I would say that a human's suffering takes precedence over any animal's right to life

Since my argument rests on consciousness as a condition to being a member of society and having the right to life in consequence, l will use it as a criterion

It's a matter of consciousness. If a person is brain dead , in a vegetative state and taking his life can reduce the suffering of an animal who is conscious, l don't see a problem with saving the life of the animal. If the foetus isn't conscious, the mother can abort it but if its conscious, then the baby has the right to life, and the suffering of the mother doesn't factor into the equation. But I'm not done with letting women abort an unconscious foetus except in special cases l have mentioned in my earlier post.

Here, it's very difficult to argue my case but l want the government to place a better social security net and weaken abortion rights to make sure no foetus is aborted for the financial inability of the parents to take care of the child. This will encourage women to not abort babies as abortion isn't a pleasant experience for the mother , placing your baby in foster care is million times better for ones mental health. This argument is in spirit of providing better social care. Abortion isn't incompatible with social care but they both drive the social practice of people in opposite directions. I will always prefer the latter option

Well, so be it. I don't have a problem with 24 weeks

Because condoms/pills etc. don't always work.

Nothing works perfectly all the time. That's not the point. We should encourage people to use ( better quality ) protection and discourage abortion. This can be achieved with improving sex education, subsidizing birth control means and banning unnecessary abortions. I have a religious/spiritual argument at hand but since many people here don't share the same religious commitment as me, it won't be well received. Nevertheless, l will make it. Sex should not be used primarily for hedonistic means and people should be more responsible with coitus as it has a deep psychosocial impact on society as a whole. I want to preserve the family structure in society and hedonism is playing a great role in destroying it. Self control in two individuals creates a family and self control in families creates a nation.

When does a foetus become conscious?

I could quote a medical study here but since we are not doctors, We should let the experts determine when the foetus becomes conscious and l am sure doctors have a medical definition of consciousness

There's still the 9 months of pregnancy which a woman has to suffer through.

Yes, but l don't see how it's proportional or even comparable to taking the life of a baby. The foetus has a right to life and the suffering of the mother during the time of pregnancy cannot take that away.

I don't see a difference in aborting a fetus that is conscious and killing a new born baby. Once the fetus gains conscious, he/she isn't a part of the mother only, but a member of society with the right to life.

In the case of rape, the mother is not responsible for taking care of her baby but the state should interfere and place the child in the care of foster parents. If the baby is the product of incest, the same rules should apply but the parents should be fined or imprisoned.

The mother should be allowed to abort the fetus if her life is in danger , this is a special concession and it doesn't require any detailed moral reasoning behind it. For the lack of any better argument, it will minimize the net suffering/loss by saving one life instead of letting two people die.

The abortion debate is a bit ridiculous tbh. People should use better means to avoid getting pregnant. What's the point of getting pregnant accidentally and going through the hassle of abortion when a condom/pill etc will cut the problem at the root. I am in favor of the government banning unnecessary abortion as long as there is a social security net to take care of vulnerable children

Best not to argue, then

I will let you decide who is more devoted to God

This forum doesn't seem the appropriate place to talk of Sufism, l can almost feel the discomfort of people through the screen. I need to find my own people, but so far l can only travel back in time and pretend to converse with Sufis, with the help of the books they have left behind. It's a cliche to wish you were born a few generations back but my case goes back hundreds of years

.

In a worldly sense, Your value in a system is the cost of removing you from the system. Take an F35 pilot , he's obviously more valuable to the army (system) than the average infantryman

But in a spiritual sense, your value is only known to God

This question is too broad so it sends my mind spinning in all directions

Okay, l get it. You have a hate boner for religion.

You are a fan of Yukio Mishima, a right wing fascist who killed himself when he came to the realization that Japan has moved on ( quite sensibly ) from the 1930/40 s war mongering imperialist genocidal agenda. I would be wary of anyone who wants to see the return of WW2 Japan. Go read about the nanking massacre. You are disappointed with modernism but your ( Yukio's) cure ie nationalism + militarism is significantly worse than the disease itself.

And yet, you have the guts to criticize Sufis who transcend the boundaries of race, culture, the Weltanschauung of the era itself but l can't stop you. It's a free world.

Again, there are definitely resonances with the ideal of 'self-realisation' as taught by Advaita Vedanta or 'realisation of the true nature' by Buddhists. The term 'realisation' is loaded or highly ramified, without a counterpart in secular discourse.

The highest aspiration of every Sufi is actually gazing at the sight of God . This world is a carcass for them, the paradise is a distraction. Self realization is only the beginning. You are supposed to die before death and annihilate yourself to the point God will bring you back to "life" with a new form/body/properties. Here's a famous hadith Ibn Arabi would always quote.

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

"Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said: Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him."

It was related by al-Bukhari.

And a famous quote of Rabia Basri : "O my Lord, whatever share of this world You have bestowed on me, bestow it to my enemies, and whatever share of the next world You have for me, give it to my friends. You are enough for me."

Whence does 'other-worldly guidance' originate? Isnt that the meaning of 'revealed truth', that being the kind of insight which by implication is not spontaneously available to the untrained?

The revelation of the law (prophetic experience) is no longer available but the mystical experience is still available and it exists to convey esoteric meaning of the revealed text. Every person is capable of receiving mystical knowledge but it requires committment. You can have a spiritual master but he only acts as a medium and it's possible for God to increase your wisdom/knowledge without any intermediary

I would have thought that mystical knowledge is beyond human reach. Am I to take it you are a mystic in the Sufi tradition?

I'm a worthless abused dog..... l am very far from being a Sufi. I am unofficially affiliated with a Sufi tradition but l haven't really put any effort in it. However, l have read their books ( of the elites amongst them ) and l am slowly preparing myself mentally to take the path of Sufism. It's not an easy path as you have to remain in voluntary poverty and the world will turn its back on you and despise you. The world is full of despise for people like me already so that should not be difficult.

However, it's also true that this insight is essentially incompatible with modernity, which is grounded in the assumption that there is no 'vertical dimension' corresponding to the realm of quality, which the OP refers to, and which is the subject of the OP also. That is why most of the modern exponents of the perennial philosophy are hostile to the idea of modernity. (See Mark Sedgewick, Against the Modern World for a critical history and analysis.)

The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
— Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels

I have read the paragraph you quoted and l disagree with some of the points, the first and third point in particular

Mystical experience is available for everyone and the qualitative difference we find isn't due to the less capable nature of some people to find wisdom, it's due to their lack of commitment in finding the truth. Some people unfortunately have the blind of racism, nationalism, scientism, sectarianism, base desires etc over their eyes which prevents them from progressing in the spiritual path.

I agree with the second point, the fourth point is a bit ambiguous. A great exemplary life for me is in selflessly serving mankind without expecting any reward in return and keeping the heart attached to God. There should also be no conflict between the material needs of the body (+society) and the spiritual needs of the individuals

I would have thought that these kinds of transcendent 'truths' are the by product of other worldly beliefs, so this goes without saying, right?

No, you cannot fill a cup that's not empty. The verification of mystical knowledge has got nothing to do with philosophy as its beyond its reach.

Obviously, you will get people who only want to affirm what they have already conceived of the world

Indeed. How are your claims any different to those made by Catholics; Mormons; Scientologists; Hindus? Or anyone who makes pronouncements about the nature of reality.

After reading the works of great philosophers ,eastern and western . I have come to the conclusion that independent reason without other worldly guidance isn't capable of reaching metaphysical, moral, aesthetic truths. Rationalism with a hint of empiricism bridged by Kant is only useful in mathematics and science (stem). This is not to say that l am a positivist, as they reject metaphysics. You can still call me an anti-philosopher as I am in agreement with Ghazali. However, it's useful to translate mystical experience back to philosophy, to make it more accessible.

You should read into the relatively new emerging sub branch of philosophy, the epistemology of disagreement. This is one of the most honest branch of philosophy and l hope we can see more anti-philosophers in the future, like Wittgenstein, Rorty even if they happen to disagree with each other

Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking

You are conveniently ignoring the great number of believers amongst the artists, poets, writers and philosophers, who didn't protest against God but joined harmoniously with the universe to sing of his glory. Even Nietzsche recognized religion as the greatest form of art. Artistic thinking goes beyond "critical thinking" , which is a euphemism for a mind under the influence of scientism induced paralysis. You are no different from the ordinary plethora of people who have lost the sense of reverence for God in this era. But ofcourse, you are the critical thinker and l am the sheep

I don't see any dictator running the world. There's a merciful God responsible for the existence of this world and l can't even begin to fathom his perfection. You see the world with what's in you. Once you remove the dirt , the rancor around your heart, you will hear the entire universe sing the praise of God

Neither God's existence

And ?

Once you know it's not possible to proof the existence of anyone ( yourself, the universe and God ) . You stop with the childish disputes of theism vs atheism. That's why l didn't attempt to proof the existence of God before describing panentheism. God's existence is a given and the content proceeds onwards without addressing atheists who are strangers to me.

Damn believers. You waste so much time hating philosophy and knowledge

I didn't like the remark of Plato on love but it's interesting to see how you miss the fact that, panentheism is rooted in neo-platonism and Plotinus was one of the first philosophers to describe it in detail. Ibn Arabi only beautified it, he made it more comprehensible and coherent as a whole

But l am the believer in opposition to philosophers , it seems to you. Have you ever thought that, the musicians, artists, poets also have something to teach you about life. They are not here to entertain you. Learn from them

Two basic steps:
A) the universe itself doesn't need to be compared with that imaginary subterfuge called God because the universe exists and will exist doesn't matter if we live in earth or not.
B) you use contradictory arguments to pursue God's omnipotence, but do not worry, I do understand you can only achieve it through faith, not knowledge. What all you are writing is related to your own beliefs.

I like how you are so confident to assert naive-realism which is in fashion these days. I don't think it's easy to proof the existence of the universe or even yourself if you want to go down that path. You can take the Wittgensteinian route and deny the need to ground oneself with a metaphysical foundation but it will also let me take a different paradigm in which the universe doesn't exist compared to God.

Be careful! Love is a serious mental disease - Plato.

Damn Plato. He should have wasted less time on philosophy and spent more time on love before condemning it and if love is a mental illness, it's a good one. In Arabic, a lover is called majnoon which literally denotes madness ( of a crazy lover )

Must have been a scary feeling. Being absorbed by the whole? Or was the feeling a great one?

It's a great experience, better than anything the world can offer. The remembrance/thought of God overtakes your mind. You forget yourself, the surrounding and everything apart from God in that moment.

However, it's only the first stage. The out of body experience is the next stage. It's more of a lucid dream where you detach yourself from the body and get to interact with spirits. Those who know, they know. Other people can entertain doubt

According to this proposition... The war, inflation, COVID pandemic, unemployment, and other serious issues are upon to God's mercy... Or what?

Yes, it's all beautiful from the perspective of God. I have lived with anxiety and depression. My suffering is it's own cure. I am grateful to God, l won't exist without him. I am not brave enough to claim my love for him as that would invite more misfortune towards me but l wish l was capable of loving God

Excuse sir, but what the f*ck is going on with your thoughts?

I think you need to expand your mind. You should consider the following question. Do ideas exist ? They surely don't exist in the same way we do. It's not weird to assign different categories/degrees to existence itself.

In the same way, the universe exists but in relation to God it doesn't have the same degree/type of existence. Just as your ideas exist but not in the same way you exist

I haven't experienced anything like that but l have come close to experiencing annihilation in the remembrance of God. I am only quoting the statements of Jami, who surely experienced the theophany of unity in multiplicity, but he was a monotheist. That's why panentheism is necessary to reconcile the multiplicity of the universe and its diversity with the oneness of God.

Inconsistent mathematics would be useless and boring. Imagine applying a mathematical concept derived from inconsistent logical system to an engineering project, it would be disastrous.

Inconsistent logic may find some application in artificial intelligence though.

Philosophical investigations