Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance? — darthbarracuda
Camus tendentiously presents his leap of faith (the belief that life has no inherent meaning) as not being a leap of faith at all, but as a resolute refusal to believe, as an abnegation of belief itself on the ground that there is no evidence. This is almost the archetypal modern presumption; the one-eyed outcome of the dominance of the scientific paradigm. — John
1) there is only God. many people are ignorant of him. many people have false ideas about him. many people call him by the wrong name. However, none of that changes the fact that there is only God who hears the prayers of every human. He is God, and there is no other. — taylordonbarrett
2) Yes, God knew that we were going to rebel against Him and cause ourselves a whole ton of suffering. And He knew that as a result He would have to become a human being and endure excruciating torture (both physical and spiritual) in order to rescue us from rebellion. But He loves us anyways, and He was willing to do that for us. Do I fully understand why He allows suffering to go on? No. But He is Omniscient. He has good reasons that you or I could never imagine. — taylordonbarrett
3) Paul gave up a life of wealth, status, and privilege in order to go on the road as a missionary. He lived a life of poverty, and was constantly arrested and tortured for his preaching. The end of his life was that of martyrdom. He did not gain wealth, or power, or status, or privilege from his preaching. He lost all those things. You can believe what you want to, but Paul was no con artist. He sincerely believed what he preached and gave up everything for Christ. — taylordonbarrett
SapientiaWell, that depends on what you mean by "god".
Seems to me there are two arguments here:
1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.
2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists.
The first argument is a reaction to the apparent non existence of a deity, while the second is a proof for a deity.
Absurdity here is meaning not only the metaphor of the actor without a stage, but also the complete uncanniness, or peculiarity, of existence as a whole if god does not exist.
Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance? — darthbarracuda
If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? — Cavacava
What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something. — Terrapin Station
Well, you know that nominalists are not saying that we don't create and utilize universal/type concepts/terms, right? The dispute is over whether we believe universals are something "real" (read "extramental") or not. So universals are our own construction, and they're very useful at that..
What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something.
Well it has the meanings and values that we give it, that we feel.If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? — Cavacava
Ah, I see. Was someone undermining the stuff we construct earlier in the thread? I overlooked that.this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work.
If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? What possible significance could it have. I think, even if valorization can not be shown to have a logical basis, it is still an inescapable function of life that we cannot not value our experiences in life..this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work. — Cavacava
Or they just failed to contracept successfully, or they just did what one does; both of which require no deep commitment. — John
I wouldn't call sexual desire whether it is being enacted in conventional marital contexts or not "conviction". Even marriage in its most conventional expressions does not necessarily involve any deep conviction; it may just as easily consists in a more or less blind following of convention. I just think a language of 'conviction' is out of place in the context you have been trying to employ it. — John
The demand for that comes form being dominated by a narrowly carping intellect. In a spiritual sense life is a profound mystery; the kind of mystery that can never be 'solved' or dispelled by discursive thought.
I think our bodies instinctively want to live; and I think our spirits also, if they are not oppressed and unable to think and feel freely and creatively, also have a strong love and desire for life. — John
I say that believing either way that life is meaningful or not involves equally a leap of faith. On the other hand where you place your faith may strengthen either the spirit and love of life in an acceptance of mystery or intellectual illusions of certainty; so which way will we jump?. — John
I don't understand you objection.
You can tell from your own feeling how thinking or believing one way or another makes you feel about life. Well at least I can; I guess I can't really speak for you, For myself I know; I have tried both.
So I can't see any contradiction. — John
Well, that depends on what you mean by "god". — Sapientia
Sapientia
I think we have to believe in universals, even though particulars are foundational. If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? It seems to work swell. Sure you can say no, you can be like that, but that's the issue, you can't be like that. — Cavacava
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.