Frank!

I think you could parse Belief a couple ways.

1. Belief could be defined as induction v. deduction. Having a belief in something infers something. It infers that a something exists. That, as apposed to a purely objective and/or universal truth, like mathematics, which exists in a deductive manner.

2. A Belief could comprise the following infamous Kantian judgement: all events must have a cause. The statement itself, if true, is something that would be beyond pure reason; both empirically and a priori/mathematical/deductively.

You probably already knew that!

Hi Forrest!

Thanks again... . There are a lot of intriguing things to unpack.

1. I see confirmation that the will precedes the intellect (from your opening paragraph). Thus the tenets of philosophical Voluntarism: "Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God’s reason. The voluntarism/intellectualism distinction was intimately tied to medieval and modern theories of natural law; if we grant that moral or physical laws issue from God, it next needs to be answered whether they issue from God’s will or God’s reason. "

Perhaps like you (not sure), I personally believe that the will precedes the intellect.

2.

But having been both mentally well and suffering from that feeling, in my well state like right now it seems clearly just an illness, and the question of what life means, or the need for meaning, are both illusory. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure I am following that illusionary description there. No doubt about it, many things in life are indeed illusionary (for example, in some other threads we've been discussing the phenomena of the reality of Time itself). But the meaning of life, or as I like to phrase it: "What kind of truth does life present to us?" is something I think we need to parse a bit further.

3. There is no need to feel like you are insulting anyone. Fear is real. In college, I had an ADD/disorder mainly due to an undiagnosed state of depression. A depression due to the will to want to be a somebody, yet not knowing what that is. Not knowing one's intrinsic passion's in life can be very disconcerting. (And combine that with an extreme sense of introverted-ness; not knowing or having the tools to know how to reach-out.) It manifested in changing major's numerous times. Quite frustrating to say the least.

But back to fear. I was suicidal at the time. I attempted suicide out in a remote part of the mountains of Colorado. I didn't know what I wanted to be. What were my fears I wonder?

4. The heroin example is interesting. What kind of need causes a person to get addicted to drugs I wonder, any clue?

5.

But I see those three states, the bottomless pit of despair that begs to be filled, the normal flat surface that doesn't need anything, and the overflowing bounty of joy and such, as just states of me, and not indicative of anything outside of me, like God. — Pfhorrest

I interpret part of that as the meme of one losing oneself to find oneself. The need for interconnectedness. A need to reach out and feel loved. A feeling to love both yourself, life and other people. Where or who can we find inspiration from, and what is inspiration; what purpose does inspiration serve? Is it a metaphysical survival need, I wonder?

Does any of that (or the foregoing) separate us from the Darwinian thought process?

I have; but, on point would be the issue of self-realization. Is that an occurrence when a want gets transferred into a need, once fulfilled?

No, it's typically the opposite. The key phrase is that those things are 'intrinsic needs' that are along the motivational scale of hierarchy.

An example of the distinction between wants and needs would be if someone says: " I want to be married; I don't need to be married". That assumes their basic needs in life have been met.

Beyond that, we will always have a tension of existence, or a constant life of striving. We are hard wired to never be satisfied. When one need is met, another takes it's place. Think about if we were not hardwired to have wants and needs, what would that look like?

Similarly, there will come a time when having, is not so pleasing as wanting:

Forrest!

Thank you for that... It speaks in part to the limitations of what logic can do for us. Notwithstanding Aristotle's recommendation of 'proper thinking' being our so-called saving grace there, it unfortunately has had its existential limitations, as you so well experienced/pointed out.

I also noted the recurring narrative/theme relating to potential dangers associated with the classic religious paradigms. To that end, we know that primarily, existential philosophy started in the book of Ecclesiastes ( three centuries before Christ). And as such, we also know that regarding certain things, no amount of rationalizing will allow ourselves to think our way into nirvana.

I also noted the element of fear, that you have had (human's) experienced. And essentially, if I could paraphrase here, a leap of faith that would conceivably connect some of the dots. Can you elaborate a bit more on these intrinsic fears? In other words, how does fear impact our way of Being, as you suggested... .

If the concept of God relates to life, and if fear is part of life, in either case it would still be germane to the discussion.

.

Have you considered the infamous Maslownian hierarchy of needs?

Perhaps you are saying that only God can have an experience of himself? But that still doesn’t tell me what you take God to be. So far, I get a generally noncognitivist vibe, mostly from the “God is Life” bit, but I’m not sure about that. — Pfhorrest

Hi Forrest!

Of course. Who would know the mind of God (can pure reason help us here... ).

Again, as a starting point, I would ask you to consider what kind of truth that life presents to oneself. I gave some starting examples from a perspective of phenomenology/living this life. Another succinct sort of question is, in consciousness, do humans have some sort of intrinsic or innate spiritual need?

So what are the things that define your concept of "God"? — Pfhorrest

One existential thought about God could relate to the meaning of life. If God is Life, we would wonder if he/she is the essence of Life. Can we know the essence of life through metaphysical knowledge/consciousness? Can we know it through some paradoxical knowledge about thought itself, against the background of the truth concerning the world? Or rather can we know it, and truly know it (both objectively and subjectively), only in and through Life itself.

The paradox there would be that we can know the essence of God only in God. Just like you only know yourself, yourself. What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. (Even still, we don't really know our true selves because we are constantly changing.)

So what does life really mean? Existentially, life could consist of a pure subjective experience of oneself which seems to perpetually oscillate between suffering and joy. A "sentient experience" is not an impersonal, blind and insensitive force like the objective forces we meet in nature, but a living and sensible force experienced, from within, that results from an inner desire and effort of the will to satisfy it.

Life then could be invisible by nature because it never appears in the exteriority of a look. The fact of seeing does in effect presuppose the existence of distance/separation between what is seen and the one who sees. Or, between the object that is perceived and the subject who perceives it. A feeling (whether from seeing a color or listening to music or experiencing love), for example, can never be seen from the exterior, it never appears in the "horizon of visibility" of the world; it feels itself and experiences itself from within the living of life. Love cannot see itself (any more than hatred). Feelings are felt in the secrecy of our hearts, where no look can penetrate.

In the same way, when we look at a person's face, it is not the person that we see, but only an image of a face, a visible appearance in the world. But, we as humans, have a will to be seen, heard, felt, loved, et al.

What kind of truth does life present to us? I think we have to start there.

Hahaha... the mysteries of living this life are not only worth experiencing, they are alive and well!!
We should have no fears...

Have you considered irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, and infinite electrical resistance (as measured by ∞ on a simple ohm meter)?

Great, thanks 180. I would invite you then over to the new existence of God thread that Forest created, and I would be happy to debate you.

We're just starting with all the semantics stuff, meaning of terms, words, paradigms, and so forth... . Just as a highlight, there might be some interesting exploration of Spinoza's pantheism and such...

There has not been much consensus about anything in this thread, but please clarify exactly what you mean by "the bivalence/vagueness issue." — aletheist

Sure. Whether the so-called reality of past, present, future are either continuous or discrete?

The bivalence issue , I thought, was in large part what you and MU were arguing relative to P and-P, generally speaking. And vagueness would suggest that language cannot capture the phenomenon of time. A common learn-ed example is the infamous red apple thus:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. This apple is red and it is not-red.

And so, I thought one argument was that basically, time violated the laws of non-contradiction.

(Of course, I still consider time an illusion. And I also view time subordinate to change.)

Hi Forrest,

Okay, first if we could get some of the definitions out of the way, that would be nice. And as such, are we saying that the classic apologetic Trilemma still applies?

As a Christian Existentialist, I deny such attributes of God from classic theology (Anselm/Aquinas) and instead hold the Epicurean denial of same. Please note it doesn't mean I throw the baby out with the bathwater either. The efficacy and importance of their body of work of course is significant in its own right. And so I draw from those influences that more closely align with my existential view of God.

Can I ask, on one summary point, has there been any consensus on the Reality of Time viz the bivalence/vagueness issue?

Thanks Forrest!

It will take me some time to digest all of this. In the meantime, there are some good contributions already. I will probably approach it bit by bit, one concept at a time...then respond accordingly.

Good stuff!

If he is so skeptical about our understanding of animals, plants, magnetism, gravity, and energy itself, then how is it that he is using his understanding of animals, plants, magnetism, gravity, and energy itself to support his thesis?

The fact is that our mind is part of the world that it is representing. It is beholden to the same laws that the rest of the universe is. If something is a representation of something else, then by definition, the representation is about what is represented, or else it can't be a representation. A political representative that didn't represent it's constituents isn't a representative. They would be an unrepresentative. — Harry Hindu

Hey Harry!

Nice analogy! You might could think of it this way. That political representative represents you. He represents you in many aspects of your will to want whatever it is that you want or need. Yet, at the same time, you don't know the nature of his existence, nor understand how or why he exists. You can only observe his behavior and make logical inferences about same.

And those inferences would include facts that he is a human, but also inferences relative to his own will and purpose in representing you. In other words, you can't get inside his mind.

Isn't that what Schop is doing about analogizing the universe to one's Will?

Unless, of course, one claims 'no theism' because its claims are false or nonsense - instead of 'no g/G' because g/G does not exist - in which case one is not making an object-statement of "belief" (re: g/G-Token) but rather a meta-statement of critique (re: g/G-Type), as I pointed out in my prior post (and elsewhere), which is demonstrable and not "precarious and untenable" in the least. — 180 Proof

Hey 180!

Not sure I follow that completely. If an atheist makes any kind of positive statement or proposition or judgement that says, " God does not exist ", therein lies your paradox. You may certainly question the EOG in normal discourse, but as an atheist you just can't make any declarative/sentence or oral statements.

If you did, you would have to defend it just like a theist. Am I missing the obvious?

Just because we weren't born with a inherent purpose doesn't mean we cannot create one for ourselves. — StarsFromMemory

Of course, existentialism is alive and well there. I would rephrase 'inherent purpose' to say self-aware, conscious existence, or simply, self-awareness. But I would also keep in mind searching for a purpose is, in itself, not mutually exclusive from an intrinsic type of objective or universal purpose. In that sense, there are those in the cognitive science world that posit life is both a discovery and uncovery, of Being.

As such, the existential element you suggest I believe, is very accurate here. But, to not take it a step further, would be ignoring our truth in that way of Being. Meaning, we both, at the same time go out in the world and discover purpose, and we also look from within to uncover our own uniqueness (talents, strengths, weaknesses, our will/to find purpose to begin with, and all the other why's of conscious existence) through various means of introspection, etc. (We uncover those things from consciousness.)

That in itself suggests or leads to conscious thought and self-awareness being something beyond Darwinian purpose/causation/logic. And that in turn usually leads to the questions concerning the metaphysical nature of our existence viz consciousness/self-awareness.

In short, we have self-awareness for some reason. The metaphysical features of consciousness should intrigue anyone who is willing to explore what is hidden behind their experiences in living this life; our will to wonder about same.

think it's absolutely wrong to play politics, especially delusional politics, with a life and death situation like this. But it's obvious what he's doing, and it's fairly easy to counter if you have the stomach for dealing with him. You can also report his posts. If a consensus develops in the mod team that NOS4A2 is indeed a troll with an agenda, action will be taken. — Baden

Thanks Baden. I will vote for his removal accordingly. Politics is one thing, but the health and well-being of citizens worldwide is another.

get the sinking feeling that perhaps you’re scared of my arguments, and the subsequent realization that you have little to combat them with save for lies and appeals for censorship. — NOS4A2

Your arguments are clear propaganda. And you're right, you're willful ignorance is scary.

Others including myself have repeatedly made attempts to educate you, but you continue to either play dumb or play like an ostrich and keep putting your head in the sand only to complain it's dark. You would just argue for the sake of arguing. It plays into your goal of furthering this dissension and dangerous propaganda.

This guy's got to go. His goal here is now clear and painfully obvious. His propaganda is dangerously motivated. I've seen enough to call it what it is...

Whether he's part of the whole Russia thing I have no clue but his incessant willful ignorance and irresponsible comments has reached a dangerous level. I hate to say this but I would recommend banning him.

Unless you have a transformation recently, your support of right-wing extreme politics says that you're a staunch conservative.

As far as freedom viz pandemics, governments, unfortunately/fortunately can help people help themselves. Especially when there is an abundance of prevailing ignorance. It's called public safety you numbnuts!

Sorry I'm busting your balls but you got to tighten up dude

The profound dependence on governments to deal with pandemic is to me more frightening than the pandemic itself. — NOS4A2

What a knuckleheaded response. Dude, your extreme ignorance unfortunately is rearing its ugly head once again.

Your response as yet another reminder of the dangers of extremism. That's one of the reasons why we pay taxes you doofus; CDC, FDA, Homeland security, etc

Golladay what rock did you crawl out from under. And you call yourself a conservative?

How about this, don't ask for a test when , if God forbid, you get infected!

There is a school of thought that suggests the sub conscious mind already knows the patterns of existence and our conscious mind is simply a torch lighting up this knowledge as we go along. — Antidote

Sure. Generally speaking, the nature of consciousness and subconsciousness working together violates certain rules of formal logic/p and-p.

Yet just another mystery in life that is something beyond logical possibility.

Are there any truths that exist that you don't know? — Antidote

Yes, there are many. The Neo-Kantian in me must repeat the infamous synthetic a priori judgement: all events must have a cause. Do we know that, in part, it is true?

If you have a belief, it's because you don't have the knowledge, or you have only part of it. You cannot believe something you know, and you cannot know something you believe. They are exclusive. . — Antidote

That of course, would not be accurate. The said synthetic a priori statements is a combination of both knowledge and belief.

In a practical sense, when someone say's they've had a religious experience (ineffable), they believe their experience was real, hence real knowledge to them. Or when a scientist discovers a novel idea and/or formula, they believe that was real knowledge. Or when a musician writes a new piece of music, that becomes his own truth, belief and/or knowledge.

So really, when one talks phenomenology and/or consciousness, things are not quite so distinct.

I enjoyed this commentary from the aforementioned quote:

"Through “liberation,” which religions call by many different names, we free ourselves from this limited nature of our perceptions, of our consciousness, to see the greater whole directly. The inquisitive, thinking, intellectual, rational, thoughtful, conceptual, inner chatterbox, monkey mind, of our brains can become quiet in certain times of spiritual reflection, contemplation, meditation, walks in nature, extreme activities, near death experiences, etc. Our consciousness actually shifts to a different mode of perception, like in sleep or in dreams, where the “I” falls away, the ego is dislodged, the psychological self seems to dissolve, and we perceive reality much differently. It can seem like a kind of death (death of ego-self), but it is also a liberating realization that we are not fundamentally this ego construction, and all that goes along with it."


"Our experience of being separate is an illusion of consciousness, just as much as space-time is an illusion of consciousness. But our consciousness itself is ultimately an inseparable “part of the whole” that we call the “Universe,” the One, the Absolute, Reality, Nature, or what many refer to as God. Our brains and bodies, and consequently our minds and consciousness, emerge from out of Nature, from the Universe, while still being absolutely a part of that Nature and Universe. We are not separate from Nature looking out onto Nature, but we are Nature looking at itself."

Enjoy!

I thought you would enjoy this Einstein Quote that speaks to, in part, Schop's transcendence or denial of Will.

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.

Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner peace."

The original handwritten version by Einstein can be found here (along with interpretation/translations/commentary):

https://www.thymindoman.com/einsteins-misquote-on-the-illusion-of-feeling-separate-from-the-whole/

Good point! Similarly, a lot of truth can be conceived through paradox and contradiction. How can we integrate these dichotomies?

It might be worth considering to first start with parsing the differences between "belief and knowledge" as you alluded.

For instance, a subjective truth ( as apposed to an objective truth from say mathematics) is a truth that one experiences personally. How then, does one convert that into knowledge(?). Should one make inferences based upon a particular happenstance or subjective experience? Do inferences suggest a kind of knowledge of some sort? And finally, could one combine the two truth's and somehow translate that into a synthetic a priori judgement about one's experience(s)?

I believe there cannot be any universal purpose (one that applies to all humans) kinda like an existential nihilist. — StarsFromMemory

You would have to support that view from a cosmological basis. Meaning, conscious existence and self-awareness. Cosmic consciousness is a topic covered extensively by many including one of my favorite's, William James.

James would argue that all religions, no matter how seemingly different, have a common core; both believe that it is possible to identify this core by stripping away institutional accretions of dogma and ritual and focusing on individual experience; and both identify mystical illumination as the foundation of all religious experience.

To parse that further, perhaps, one might want to ask about the differences between an objective truth and a subjective truth. And what kind of meaning each of those have to humans... .

Thanks 180. It does seem pretty much common sense-like.

I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that — Pfhorrest

Hi Forest!

Just curious, how would you defend your belief system? For instance, which domain would you draw from ( logic/deductive or inductive reasoning, cosmology, phenomenology/consciousness, metaphysics, existentialism, cognitive science/psychology).

I would be happy to debate the EOG based upon all of the above disciplines, if you want to start a thread. Up to you. I'm just wondering how an Atheist thinks, since I'm obviously not one.

. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion — Pneumenon

My thoughts ( where we just sort-of been finishing-up over on another thread) is that CHANGE is real, where on the other hand, TIME is the illusion.

I know...what are some of the lessons learned there....good point!

Hahaha...I don't know, it's an interesting dynamic...or at least somthing to parse...philosophically. :brow:

Nice. Sounds like justice was served... . An aside, isn't it funny how you can kind-of look at someone and suspect something just isn't right (viz heinous activity/nefarious behavior)?

Perhaps one should not judge a book by its cover. The package in which people come to us may be attractive or repulsive, but if we exert a little effort—like opening a book and browsing its contents before deciding whether to buy it—we can see past our visual biases to the truth. Maybe like good scientists, we should cling to our theories about people only loosely and always be willing to revise them in light of new data.

But boy, did that dude play the part or what!!?

...and/or (truth) to ourselves. It is therefore wise to embrace such things, no doubt.

No, but paradox is type of truth. — Gregory

What type of truth would that be... ?

While you are thinking about that one, consider the next paradox:

1. The only certainty is uncertainty.

Truth trumps error — Gregory

Does truth trump paradox?

Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary — Gregory

I know it's off topic, so I'll only briefly comment with my reply to 'nothingness' relative to logical necessity viz EOG:

1. There exists at least one true proposition (is it true or false?).

Otherwise, back on topic, have a look-see here:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/134/Schopenhauer_the_Optimist

problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"...that they start arguing from a position of weakness. — Frank Apisa

I think Frank nailed it. Here's the problem. When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God's, that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

Therefore, from 180's metaphor, the best thing an Atheist can do is niether show interest in TV to begin with, nor comment on same. In other words when topics of EOG rear their heads, simply say nothing and walk away. I think in that way, it would prove their belief system is strong.

( Otherwise, per OP, what's the point about talking about nothing?)