you don’t have to “completely” justify a belief as in answering that infinite regress, that’s impossible; instead believe whatever you want, but only tentatively, until it can be shown false, and then move on to a remaining option. — Pfhorrest
I think this realization can be painful. It's the death of the usual spiritual comforts. One has to set sail on a dark ocean of personality and even embrace a permanent identity crisis. One becomes everyone and no one. For me the journey has been strange. It's lonely and yet the opposite of lonely, humble but proud. — jellyfish
Omnipresence. IF there were a god, wouldn't His presence be utterly overwhelming? This seems to be what many of the devout describe. — Banno
There are things that stand outside the tournament of justification, because they are needed in order for that tournament to take place. Isn't god just the sort of thing that would justify everything else? — Banno
SO there must be stuff that is beyond doubt. — Banno
Now, if there were a God, wouldn't it be that sort of thing? — Banno
I understand the desire to transcend that dichotomy. In some ways it reminds me of German philosophers who wanted to bring God down to this world. — jellyfish
Apparently, I have given you the wrong impression of Enformationism. It is not an attempt "to bring God down to this world". And it is not a Christology in any sense. It is instead an attempt to understand the traditional disputed dichotomies of Science, Philosophy, and Religion. As expressed in the heading of my BothAnd Blog : "Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc."The vision blends Christianity with technological progress. It's optimistic. It doesn't address the mortality of the species (God himself is mortal). Humanism is arguably the best thing we have. — jellyfish
Yes. I was impressed, although at times mystified, by Hofstadter's books. I have quoted him in some of my essays on The Self. But I wouldn't mention that abstruse Strange Loop argument to non-scientists or non-philosophers, because it's so technical and abstract. :nerd:Have you looked into Douglas_Hofstadter? — jellyfish
Apparently you've never been shot at.What the heck is "presence"? By the time I say "now" it's in the past. I'm afraid the presence of anything is not overwhelming. It's actually very difficult to affirm what it means to be present. — Metaphysician Undercover
Talk to the Descartes.The only thing beyond doubt would be something perfectly well known, and such perfection is proper only to an ideal. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's painful and liberating, as you suggest. I am quite isolated where I live--there are absolutely no old leftie hippie intellectuals around these parts; I'm surrounded by devout, hypocritical christians. So I have indeed found in this forum a respite, a breather. — uncanni
I really like your phrase, "permanent identity crisis": but this doesn't have to be a painful or uncomfortable constant: it can be seen simply as the evolution of oneself, one's philosophy. — uncanni
Apparently, I have given you the wrong impression of Enformationism. It is not an attempt "to bring God down to this world". And it is not a Christology in any sense. It is instead an attempt to understand the traditional disputed dichotomies of Science, Philosophy, and Religion. As expressed in the heading of my BothAnd Blog : "Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc." — Gnomon
Yes. I was impressed, although at times mystified, by Hofstadter's books. I have quoted him in some of my essays on The Self. But I wouldn't mention that abstruse Strange Loop argument to non-scientists or non-philosophers, because it's so technical and abstract — Gnomon
that institutionalized religion, in my sweepingly generalized view, does everything in its power to make people not question their existence. This is the boulder of ideology that oppresses so many minds so easily. This kind of ideology relieves the individual of any requirement to think and question; the goal is obedience.
To confront the impasse, as I meant it, is to acknowledge the aporia: the problem of existence does not have an answer = the disproportion between explanation and action. — uncanni
I have found my ecstasy in this crisis. I live largely for this crisis. I suppose I chose those words to emphasize that it's the way of death and despair, too. — jellyfish
And apparently you would doubt doubt. Where does that leave you? — tim wood
I agree. But, when god is labeled as "a perfect being", it's an Oxymoron. In our experience, no created or mortal beings are perfect. Because, given Life & Time, they have the potential for further development. That's why I try to avoid the confusion by labeling G*D as "BEING" : defined as the eternal-infinite power to exist. Since that includes all possibilities, it means that G*D has the potential for Personality. But only in the world of imperfect created beings is that opportunity actualized into reality. "Person" is a relative term, while "BEING" is an absolute concept.That said, since god as I have defined possesses all abilities that exist (or more), and since persons exist, then god must possess the ability of persons too. But as the perfect being, it is not limited to possessing the abilities of persons only. — Samuel Lacrampe
There's no way around crisis, death or despair for humans. The way I see it, we had best find the "healthiest" ways we can manage for dealing with them. — uncanni
I'm not trying to be buzzkill but only articulate the complexity of not-stasis as I see it. I guess I find an ecstasy in this complexity -- at the cost of having anything like a solution for existence. — jellyfish
I'm not seeking an easy resting place for my mind or my beliefs. Sometimes I think things would be a lot easier if I just knew that I was saved by Jesus, but then other times I think that everyone who has gotten "the good news" really knows, deep down inside, that it's bollocks. The restlessness of the negative dialectic keeps calling me... — uncanni
Sometimes I think things would be a lot easier if I just knew that I was saved by Jesus, but then other times I think that everyone who has gotten "the good news" really knows, deep down inside, that it's bollocks. The restlessness of the negative dialectic keeps calling me... — uncanni
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ae/part2-section3.htmThe true content of romantic art is absolute inwardness, and its corresponding form is spiritual subjectivity with its grasp of its independence and freedom. This inherently infinite and absolutely universal content is the absolute negation of everything particular, the simple unity with itself which has dissipated all external relations, all processes of nature and their periodicity of birth, passing away, and rebirth, all the restrictedness in spiritual existence, and dissolved all particular gods into a pure and infinite self-identity. In this Pantheon all the gods are dethroned, the flame of subjectivity has destroyed them, and instead of plastic polytheism art knows now only one God, one spirit, one absolute independence which, as the absolute knowing and willing of itself, remains in free unity with itself and no longer falls apart into those particular characters and functions whose one and only cohesion was due to the compulsion of a dark necessity.[1] — Hegel
I understand. But I persist to say that your definition of religion is therefore too broad, because sportball would be a religion for Alice and Bob in the second alternate universe; but this is not how people commonly use the term "religion", is it?Faith is uncritical, unquestionable belief. — Pfhorrest
Actually the study of reality is metaphysics, not physics; and indeed it is not strictly religious. But that is why another essential component to "religion" is the act. The mere study of topics even about gods would be called theology, for which the theologian who does not act in accordance to the findings from the theology is technically not religious."Ultimate reality" is a topic that non-religious studies like physics and (irreligious) philosophy also investigate. — Pfhorrest
We need to make the distinction between the terms "disbelief" and "non-belief". A rock is in a state of non-belief, for it can neither believe nor disbelieve in anything. On the other hand, the proposition "disbelief in p" is the opposite to "belief in p". As opposites, they are also mutually exclusive.Well technically, disbelieving P and believing not-P are not equivalent; if we write it in functional notation that becomes clear, the opposite of believe(P) is not-believe(P), which is not necessarily equivalent to believe(not-P) — Pfhorrest
I understand that you discuss the Thomists' view, which is not necessarily your own view. But my point was that Thomists, who are somewhat competent at logic, would not make the simple error to believe that reason supports faith when, under the definition of faith you have given, reason destroys faith.I was saying that the Thomists think that. That wasn't my opinion, that was my report of their opinions. — Pfhorrest
This to me describes the 'infinity' of the godless/divine wanderer. — jellyfish
And an unjustifiable thing cannot itself justify anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
Placing god in this contradictory category only makes the reality of god impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover
In fact, your example is a complete misrepresentation of what an ideal is supposed to be. — Metaphysician Undercover
I like vanilla. There's no reopen that I like vanilla, I just do. It's unjustified. SO what? — Banno
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.