Yes, but he criticizes Hegel and Schelling for accepting the 'optimistic' view of Christianity — Wayfarer
You mention becoming. Becoming what? What is the goal? — j0e
What a beautiful question! I answer, to become the God that we think that God ought to be. — tim wood
But I try, and many people try, and in the trying is progress. And if that's the Godhead of a man or a woman, to have done their best even in the face of the worlds difficulties, then that's not a bad goal and would be quite a lot for anyone to achieve. — tim wood
The worship of God is: Honouring his gifts in othermenhumans, each according to his genius, and loving the greatestmenhumans best: those who envy or calumniate greatmenhumans hate God; for there is no other God. — Blake
Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life”
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/feuerbach.htmDuring one brief decade, Sydney Hook writes, the whole of German philosophy and culture stood within Feuerbach’s shadow, "If Hegel was the anointed king of German thought in the period from 1820 to 1840, then Feuerbach was the philosophical arch-rebel from the time of the publication of his Das Wesen des Christenthums to the eve of the revolution of 1848" (Hook 1950, 220). At a time when Hegel was seemingly marching down the history in all glory, Feuerbach caught him in his nakedness by pointing out the unreal nature of his theory. Hegel’s mistake lies in his tendency to treat "abstract predicates—reason, thought, consciousness, and being—as entities." (Harvey 1987, 317) In the Hegelian system, nature exists "only as the alienation of the absolute Idea, as it were a degradation of the Idea." (Engels 1903, 52) For Feuerbach, Hegel’s system was standing on its head; it must be inverted in order to get the simple truth, namely all the predicates are only predicates of existing individual human beings. "[Feuerbach] placed materialism on the throne again without any circumlocution. Nature exists independently of all philosophies." (Engels 1903, 53)
Rather than saying that the Absolute Spirit achieves self-realization by actualizing itself in the finite world, Feuerbach argued that the human spirit obtains self-knowledge by objectifying itself in the idea of God. "Religion is not, as Hegel thought, the revelation of the Infinite in the finite; rather, it is the self-discovery by the finite of its own infinite nature. God is the form in which the human spirit first discovers its own essential nature." (Harvey 1995, 27)
— link
https://materialreligions.blogspot.com/2015/01/thoughts-on-death-and-immortality.htmlAccordingly, once all that is truly actual, universal, substantial, once all Spirit, soul, and essence have disappeared from real life, nature, and world history, once everything has been massacred, has been dissolved into its parts, has been rendered without being, without unity, without Spirit, without soul, then, upon the ruins of the broken world, the individual raises the banner of the prophet and stations the abominable sacred watchman of the belief in his immortality and in the pledge of the hereafter. Standing on the ruins of the present life, in which he sees nothingness, all at once there awaken in the individual the feeling and consciousness of his own inner nothingness; and in the feeling of this double nothingness there flow from him, as from a Scipio on the ruins of Carthage, the compassionate teardrops and soap bubbles of the world of the future. Over the gap that lies between the present life as it really is and his perception and representation of it, over the pores and gaps in his own soul, the individual erects the fools’ bridge of the future life. After he has allowed to wither the fruit trees, the roses and lilies of the present world, after he has sickled away grass, cabbage, and corn and has transformed the whole world into a desiccated field of stubble, there finally springs up, in the empty feeling of his futility and the impotent consciousness of his vanity, as the weak semblance and faint illusion of the living, fresh time when flowers bloom, the nondescript, pale red, faded autumn crocus of immortality. Because nothing exists in the subject but the truthless subject itself, and because nothing exists outside of the subject but the temporal and the transitory, the finite, nothing but that which is false and unreal in the real world, it stands to reason that for the subject the real world is an unreal, future, otherworldly world. For the hereafter is nothing but the mistaken, misconceived, and misinterpreted real world. The subject knows only the shadow, the superficial external appearance of the real world, because he is only shallow and hollow in himself. He mistakes the shadow of the world for the world itself; and his idea of the really true world must be only a shadow, the illusion and fantastical dream of the future world. — F
Fitche, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer all held the same philosophy after you put unnecessary details away. — Gregory
http://afreeleftblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-flat-headed-insipid-nauseating.htmlHegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation. — Schopenhauer
For what it's worth, folly or not, I've always interprered "karma" as habit-action, "death" in Buddha"s sense here as (the inevitable fall into deep) sleep and "reincarnation" as waking-up from sleep (i.e. another new day to try again to cultivate right / better habits by performing right / better (while refraining from wrong / worse) actions —> today's dukkha are the "consequences" of yesterday's karma (re: each Buddhist's daily experience of "the wheel of rebirth"... "samsara-nirvana")) so that, therefore, Buddhist practice can, in this way I think reasonably (pragmatically), be interpreted as consistent, or compatible, with Carvaka (i.e. 'atoms-in-void') materialism. I suspect that "the Buddha rejects materialism" was just his followers' apologetics appended much later to the Buddhist canon just like St. Paul's propagandistic "Letters" centuries after they were "written" were used by the Bishops at Nicea to (filter-out and) repurpose the "Gospels".Buddhism is not theistic in the Western sense, but it's not atheist in the modern sense. In the Buddha's day there were philosophers called carvaka who were strict materialists, just like today's. The Buddha rejects materialism because it implies that there is no continuity of karma, that at death, there are no consequences of actions in life. Anyway there's a thread on Buddhism, this conversation ought to move to there. — Wayfarer
. 'Transcendence' is the impossible idea of concept without soundbody. 'Immanence' is recognizing what was thought to be transcendent as a 'form' that cannot be isolated from its 'flesh' (the breath or the ink in which we signal.) — j0e
I suspect that "the Buddha rejects materialism" was just his followers' apologetics appended much later to the Buddhist canon just like St. Paul's propagandistic "Letters" centuries after they were "written" were used by the Bishops at Nicea to (filter-out and) repurpose the "Gospels". — 180 Proof
"transcendence"--of something apart from the universe, like a transcendent God--is unreasonable if not impossible — Ciceronianus the White
I find presiding over all reason. The capacity to use tools to determine knowledge and winnow it from the chaff of unreason. — tim wood
:100: :fire:I mean reason to be the application of logic to various things in various ways as appropriate to those things and ways, to the end of understanding them. The particular application being just the argument itself. I hold reason to preside because at the most fundamental level the details of understanding should make sense. And if sense cannot be made of them, then it is hard to see how they're reasonable.
The world, of course, from time to time shows us phenomena the facts of which seem neither sensible nor reasonable. But so far that has been just a challenge to adjust/refine the understanding itself to make it again reasonable. And where for the moment that seems impossible, then reason dictates we say we do not know. — tim wood
:rofl:My goodness it's as if you don't understand philosophy at all? — 3017amen
:point: ; or see quote with emphases above, 3017.Explainthe nature of humanreason?
by logic you mean bivalent logic then you run into problem with its application to the world since the world does not divide neatly into either/or determinations. — Fooloso4
We're patient, we'll wait for mr. Wood to reply — 3017amen
I mean reason to be the application of logic to various things in various ways as appropriate to those things and ways, to the end of understanding them. The particular application being just the argument itself. I hold reason to preside because at the most fundamental level the details of understanding should make sense. And if sense cannot be made of them, then it is hard to see how they're reasonable.
The world, of course, from time to time shows us phenomena the facts of which seem neither sensible nor reasonable. But so far that has been just a challenge to adjust/refine the understanding itself to make it again reasonable. And where for the moment that seems impossible, then reason dictates we say we do not know. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.