Strive for a dynamic balance, of light
And dark, Yin and Yang, and wrong and right.
Reality is found not in separate actions
But in related events blended in twilight. — PoeticUniverse

Good and evil
Like rain and sun
Having one without the other
Is the man without his hun

Reality is twice
Two becomes one
The perversity of man
Is the Father without the Son

Fundamentalism may seem futile to us, but it seems to gain strength every day. The force of the irrational is extremely powerful: it wins over and over again throughout much of history. — uncanni

Two points:

1. Fundamentalism can be thought of as one making political statements about a something. For it to have any import at all, one has to already believe. Otherwise it lacks meaning and can be dangerously extreme.

2. On the other hand, it's no more irrational than our existence here. Our conscious nature is , in itself, irrational.

There's a lot more to it, but here's a quick synopsis that everyone here can relate to:

I could make a crazy Taoist universalist post if I wanted to but I don’t and I wouldn’t. I like spiritual diversity, including athei — Mark Dennis

Hey Mark, speaking of spiritual diversity, I think there are many of us who would embrace and welcome a thread on Taoism... Maybe too, talk about how Taoism reconciles the problem of evil.

There are many Christian Existentialists who incorporate Taoism as a matter of pragmatic inspiration.

My view is that much of what is important in the Western philosophical tradition is intertwined with theology because of the way that Greek philosophy became absorbed by Christian theology. — Wayfarer

I have a theory that's neither truly novel yet bears a brief exploration nonetheless. Much like the problem of evil, the problem of existence, inevitably rears its philosophical head in some way, shape or form.

Epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, contemporary philosophy, et al. It doesn't matter... .

My theory is simply based on both St. Thomas' & Schopenhauer's metaphysical will. Or in cognitive philosophy, the sense of wonderment.

I'm afraid as Beings of higher intellect/consciousness, we can't escape from asking abstract questions about the how's & why's of existence(?)

Maybe the question should be reframed to say perhaps; why is there so much rambling about the problem of existence... I don't know you guys tell me...

( Or the nature of existence, whichever you prefer.)

It’s about ten years since I started posting on forums. My original inspiration was this review which I still thoroughly enjoy every time I revisit it. (Damn, for years that review was publicly available, but it’s gone behind a paywall.) — Wayfarer

Indeed, that really speaks to this issue at hand here. Nice review Wayfarer!

About 20 years ago when I became interested in philosophy (outside of some freshman courses in college) I purchased https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Made-Simple-Complete-Important/dp/0385425333 and, in all but one of the domain's there were repeated references to Diety/God as to the nature of things.

Thus my question, why is that?

Yes I think there is something to say about nothing. But there also appears to be nothing to say about something (ineffable).

I wonder if there is an irony or paradox there somewhere...

Okay, I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants . Even the apocryphal question about 'the number of angels who can dance on the point of a needle', would make better reading than what I have read here ! — fresco

Hey fresco, here's the short answer: in Philosophy, every thing returns back to the unexplained nature of existence.

Why are most philosophical domains preoccupied with reductionist arguments (causation)?

When I think of economic policy or otherwise, I think about Presidential leadership like the sports metaphor.

1. The players execute the plays.
2. The coaches coach ( some are rah-rah coach's; other's are more X's and O's, and still some remain somewhat clueless and keep making mistakes or just don't care)

The overlooked thing; the coaches either benefit or suffer (for a few years) from their predecessor. (Barry Switzer benefited from Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys, Mike Tomlin from Bill Cowher's Steelers, etc. etc.) Obama suffered from Bush trickle-down economics.

I worry Trump is going to get mad at everybody and dick-up the economy. With his money, I question if he really cares...oh wait, he doesn't want to share his tax returns LOL.

We need more Moderate's in both Political and Religious institutions!

In the spirit of PoeticUniverse:

Profundity and pie
That caught my eye
Though surely sweet
Your trick or treat(ha)

Volition is Man
Discoveries are great
What you are not
You can't understand

Sure. I just don't have anyyhing to say about the world where everything runs together.
3h — frank

I would submit that's precisely another example of unresolved paradox in the world.

Take consciousness for example. Driving your car while daydreaming; both your consciousness and subconsciousness is working together. It breaks the laws of excluded middle.

And so in an ironic way you're right. What can we actually say about that? How do we explain or describe it?

Maybe in WG it can be explained.

Sure you don't want to dichotomize the dichotomizing, ha.

I honestly believe it's Kantian intuition, which was part of his metaphysical theory; using your word, an ' innate' sense of being.

An innate sense of wonderment that we have. Thus, once again, the Kantian metaphysical judgement: all events must have a cause. Yay for the synthetic a priori !!!

Personally I don't dichotomize, I think both philosopher's had their virtues. I try to take the good from all of philosophy were possible. Easier said than done of course LOL.

In my opinion I think Plato was more of a rationalist. His reasoning seemed to be more a priori than not. And not that that's a bad thing; it's just that any one thing can be overdone.

Just like there's a so-called art to living, in Philosophy perhaps there's an art to philosophizing. Maybe it's all about the context.

So its not just with angst that we face mortality? — frank

With fear. Most humans have intrinsic fears. Many legitimate and some illusionary. Some of those that are illusionary can come from systemic means and methods.

While others face mortality with a heightened sense of wonderment. Of course we know from cognitive science NDE patient's lose the so-called intrinsic fears about mortality. Ironically enough perhaps they got a little glimpse of your WG world haha.

As far as angst -less purposelessness, perhaps that's a state of homeostasis for you.

isnt thanatos also a response to mortality?
2h — frank

Yes of course I believe so...

Sure. I think I used the correct term 'timelessness' to convey eternity.

The reason why I used anxiety or angst there Frank is because of your OP relating to ontology/ Being. And in that sense human beings having a sentient existence, generally experience existential anxiety or angst relative to mortality.

AKA fear of the unknown.

I agree. So what about the next question: if time appears to the mind only in contrast to its negation, what do we make of its negation: stasis?

I agree also viz color.

With respect to time, relative to the OP of Being and its negation = anxiety or angst.

However if, say, the residents in WG were unaware of time, it would follow that there would be no conception of the so-called temporal-ness of time. And as such, (relative to Being) there would be no cause for anxiety or angst.

But I'd like to further expand on the metaphorical color experiment. What if residents of WH somehow had a brief period of awareness or knowledge about the world of WG?

Or better said, what if WH residents were allowed to access residents of WG. Could they speak to each other in terms of color language? Probably not. Could it be in some ways ineffable? I suppose so. Could they learn new language?

It would be a strange and completely novel experience nonetheless. (Assuming of course that the concept of experience is in itself even something available to be experienced in that [WG's] world.) In other words, just like color, the idea of experience may not exist in that world. And maybe then, viz the experience of timelessness; it just is.

(In a timeless-ness world, what's more conceivable: would you say' I am', or ' I is'.)

logic is a set of rules in the mind, used to process information, those rules come from sense data (evidence) — OmniscientNihilist

What is sense data, a metaphysical concept or phenomenological theory of sorts about our consciousness (I wonder) hence:

"Talk of sense-data has since been largely replaced by talk of the closely related qualia. The formulation 'the given' is also closely related. None of these terms has a single coherent and widely agreed-upon definition, so their exact relationships are unclear. One of the greatest troubling aspects to 20th century theories of sense data is its unclear rubric nature.

A controversial issue is whether sense-data have real, concrete existence. Depending upon the version of the sense-data theory adopted, sense-data may or may not be identical with aspects of external physical objects; they may or may not be entities that exist privately in the subject’s mind."

Most interesting to me is your last observation that people act irrationally without awareness of doing so. This reminds me of the age old question, why do people choose bad instead of good when, ex hypothesi, bad is harmful and good is beneficial. People must somehow think that they are acting rationally even though they are acting irrationally. Bad faith? — Pantagruel

Ha, thanks P! In a funny similar way, I was thinking while reading your above quote that when I tell people 'happy Monday' and they look at me like I'm growing a horn, I then reply with something like : " I know, I know, it's an oxymoron, but I lie to myself every morning".

As far as bad faith, yes. I wonder what that faith consists of...like we get the notion of a justified true belief, deductive and inductive logic, and all the other intellectual things in life. But sometimes we say we are aware of those bad things as you suggest, yet we just don't care.

So, I'm thinking Aristotle's 'know thyself' meme sounds good, and trust me I love that meme, but people may be aware that they are aware, yet still proceed out of some level of willful ignorance.

And that is why I tried the 'abortion syllogism'.... which takes us back to sentience as other's have suggested...

I'm trying to figure this out

"Emotion just elaborates on the meaning of information. Information alone is useless to you. To work with that information in a logical manner, you have to know what that information means. Your emotions tell you what information means to you."

“All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge.”
— Albert Einstein

S, I just was doing some researching there ( those are just a couple sound bites)...I think what you're saying is that emotions will preclude a purely objective logical formulation?

I second that!

But the suffering and life itself is worth it because living is worth it, it develops us for the life to come. — philrelstudent

Indeed, like rain is required for growth. Incessant rain/clouds can be emotionally painful, but without it, there would be no life.

Thus the metaphorical tree of life.

That which exists requires time is a valid premise; existence requires time is a logically invalid premise. — Mww

Thanks Mww! Can you elaborate a bit more on the invalid premise of 'existence requires time' propositional statement?

No. It wouldn’t make it ‘rational’ or ‘logical’ either. — I like sushi

Thanks S! Well, firstly, taken for face value, if those premise are valid or sound, then it has to be true.
(In the case of human's requiring time for their existence.)

I love sweet emotion, don't misunderstand. I'm trying to parse out basic existential a priori concepts that would prove, say, that on its face, abortion is irrational.

Secondly, perhaps It doesn't even have to be abortion. It could be the phenomenon of Love for instance. But that would be a little trickier to parse I think.

Johnny is in love
Mary loves Johnny
Johnny loves Mary, but also loves Suzy more than Mary
Johnny will love both of them
Suzy is ok with that, but Mary is not

Any thoughts there... ?

logic is just the order of sense data. a processing method, from the sense data, to navigate the sense data, to the pleasure — OmniscientNihilist

Thanks ON! Is there a primacy associated with those impulses? In other words, are you thinking that the Will, provided for sense data first, then looks to find logic/intellect to make sense of the sense data or Will(?).

If so, higher consciousness could mean the Will is comprised of human sentience which takes precedence over intellect?

Just trying to make sense of what you are saying.

yah. I agree — Banno

That God is just or unjust?

Decide what? I'm not following you.

Okay, but your lack of an answer suggests that you are either trolling or disrespectful toward the OP.

This is not appropriate fodder for a philosophy forum. But...

Yes, your christian god acts in immoral ways. The Bible tells us so.

You now have to make the decision - will you follow your immoral god, or will you do what is right? — Banno

Your statement is a little confusing, on the one hand you're stating that the OP's concern is not appropriate " fodder for a philosophy forum", yet on the other you were suggesting you have a better alternative thus " will you do what is right?"

So my question remains, what is right?

with that said, I believe that this offers no doubt that the first humans ever to form any religion were feeling the God-like "sensation" that it is said to encompass humans even in the absence of any religion or anything like it. — Maureen

This might speak to your concern (s)

From Religion, Values, and Peak-Experiences:

“Most people lose or forget the subjectively religious experience, and redefine Religion [1] as a set of habits, behaviors, dogmas, forms, which at the extreme becomes entirely legalistic and bureaucratic, conventional, empty, and in the truest meaning of the word, antireligious. The mystic experience, the illumination, the great awakening, along with the charismatic seer who started the whole thing, are forgotten, lost, or transformed into their opposites. Organized Religion, the churches, finally may become the major enemies of the religious experience and the religious experiencer. This is a main thesis of this book.”

He supports this by dividing people into two categories: people (peakers) who experience “peak experiences and those who don’t (non-peakers.) The peakers are the ones who were mystics, who experienced a state of being revealed the world in a nonjudgemental ecstasy and whose descriptions became the founding of religions. This peak experience is entirely internal to the person experiencing it. The non-peakers either haven’t experienced this or have repressed it. The two types of people really do not understand each other according to Maslow.

Then Maslow goes on to say that believes the dichotomy between science and religion has become too wide. He believes that a scientist needs values, values provided by religion, to be good scientists. If they do not have these values, then they are no better than the scientists working for Adolf Hitler, experimenting on other humans and those producing weapons of war. On the other hand, religions need to accept science and realize that religion is not fixed by ritual and canonical law. By becoming fixed, they deny the peak experience and in fact become antithesis of what they profess as religion. Such religion produces sheep rather than men as the religion becomes rigid and authoritarian. Maslow believes that religious questions should be scientifically examined and discovered.

A particularly interesting passage to me is, “It has sometimes seemed to me as I interviewed “nontheistic religious people” that they had more religious (or transcendent) experiences than conventionally religious people. (This is, so far, only an impression but it would obviously be a worthwhile research project.) Partly this may have been because they were more often “serious” about values, ethics, life-philosophy, because they have had to struggle away from conventional beliefs and have had to create a system of faith for themselves individually.” As I personally searched for the origins of morals, I too have had to shed conventional beliefs about morals and observe that religions seem to follow morals rather than precede them. In other words, morals tend to create religions rather than religions create morals.

No, educate us, if you are able to(?)

You now have to make the decision - will you follow your immoral god, or will you do what is right? — Banno

Do you know what is right?

Ask your professor his personal views on omnipotence. And ask him if in history there were other theologians & philosophers who struggled with the concept of evil viz Omni-x3.

For example, theist/philosopher's St Thomas and Epicurus struggled with that very same reconciliation (of evil/omnipotence). Accordingly, modern-day Process Theology provides for a more plausible explaination.

As a Christian Existentialist, I certainly recommend you continue to ask questions and explore all information available to you in researching the topic. However, keep in mind that no one has a complete explaination relative to understanding God's nature.

As other's have suggested here, you don't have to believe in Omnipotence to be a Christian.

I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview? — Harry Hindu

Existence requires time
Human Beings exist
Therefore, Human Beings require time for their existence

If that little syllogism is sound/true, then it would make abortion illogical or irrational.

(And speaks to your concern about " becoming ")

Of course the theist would say creation ex nihilo as first cause. Other options include but are not limited to:

1. Gnostic eternalism
2. Cosmic Dualism
3. Pantheism

The inexplicable manifestation of DNA, I’d say, poses the possibility of it being meaningful. Would such meaningfulness be the same as in Shakespeare"s writings? If so, is meaning an indivisible aspect of consciousness? And, further, is the universe/multiverse made of consciousness? Such an enquiry might be seen as metaphysical. I'd prefer it to be scientific.

Or, said in another way, are abstract's in and of themselves, provide for some level of meaningful existence(?). I would say yes. Music and math would be some examples of abstract's providing for meaningful existence.

Is meaning indivisible from conscious existence, and the metaphysical Will in nature, are both good topics that Schopenhauer studied:

"Man defines as a metaphysical animal, able to marvel at his own existence and the sight of the world, aspiring to be absolute.

– The term “metaphysical animal ” has remained famous.

– As for the term metaphysical taken substantively, it means[to], Schopenhauer, a discipline which claims to be knowledge and experience beyond the given phenomena (as defined by Kant), claiming a speculative rise above lessons of experience

Hence arises the metaphysical? It is rooted in surprise and suggests that is absolute behind nature.

– But man is not only a metaphysical animal: it is a religious being, which focuses on mysteries, understood as dogmas which can not be clearly captured by thought."

Hey Brian what's your take on 'the stream of consciousness'? You know, random thought's that one has while , say, driving a car, resting, meditating, etc. etc..

I think what you might say is that randomness in consciousness, may simply be an empirical phenomena resulting from past experience ideas/imagery that one collects and enters into their database, etc.. , there's a fairly comprehensive theory of Quantum Consciousness:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

As it relates to the OP of Meaning though, as you suggest, maybe things like the Will, seem to remain a mystery or at least appear to be beyond our understanding...

I have a strong feeling reading your OP. Destiny has several manifestations. In this season of your life, destiny is requiring you to introspect on the meaning of love.

Nice Op Chris. In addition to mathematics, other metaphysical probabilities from consciousness include:

1. Music
2. Wonderment
3. Good and Bad
4. The Will
5. Love

And any other human abstract (axiom) that doesn't confer biological advantage.

Is abortion a logically impossible truth or irrational?

Existence requires time
Human Beings exist
Therefore, Human Beings require time for their existence

In other words, that would seem to negate the personhood in-the-process argument.