Is it not Christianity which tells us that God is a "hidden God" a God who hides Himself? — Agustino
A "pluralistic" world is just the effect of pride and selfishness, of man who thinks he can, alone, by his own efforts, reach up to God. — Agustino
It is also a fact that God would revealed himself across the whole planet, not only in one place. But these revelations are partial. — Agustino
So then how does the same self return when you awaken, and where does it go while you're asleep?Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming. — BlueBanana
It's in there, please read it more carefully. It's in Pascal's quote, a citation from Isaiah :)Got a citation? — Wayfarer
You're mixing up a whole different set of issues here. On the one hand there is the Truth, and what or Who that Truth is. On the other hand is how people relate to that Truth (which is individual). And finally there is the question of how society should be organised (whether those who reject the Truth should be outcasts). These questions have little to do with each other. So which one do you want to address?Right. So everyone should believe the same, think the same, in accordance with revealed truth, which is the same for everyone, and those who don't should be outcaste? — Wayfarer
Yes, that's why I said it's a fact that God WOULD reveal Himself (if He exists) across the whole planet.A Philosophy Forum is not the place for proselytizing. — Wayfarer
The other question you have to consider is, that if this is so, and the self disappears in dreamless sleep, then it would follow that one commits no wrong if they were to kill you while you were in dreamless sleep, for there would be no "you" to be harmed in that case. And I think we can both conclude that this is wrong, and thus identifying consciousness with the self must be rejected.Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming. — BlueBanana
Would this substance be physical or? And how are the reactions of our brain correlated with that mind/self? In other words, how is that mind/self attached to our brain, and only our brain?There exists some other substance that our minds consist of, and the reactions in our brains are some kind of "projections" of that mind/self. — BlueBanana
I agree with this.While asleep, that self does not disappear, it just hibernates. — BlueBanana
But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? This goes to the point I was discussing with unenlightened before:The consciousness is there, just not conscious of anything. — BlueBanana
You create a division between "the fact of consciousness" and the "contents of consciousness", but I think no such distinction can be drawn in the first place. How can consciousness be conceived to exist without the attendant intentionality - or better said directionality - towards particular contents? If so, then it would seem that consciousness cannot be conceived without reference to the constituents of consciousness. One is always conscious of something, one cannot simply be conscious. — Agustino
Would this substance be physical or? And how are the reactions of our brain correlated with that mind/self? In other words, how is that mind/self attached to our brain, and only our brain? — Agustino
But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? — Agustino
One can turn it upside down and say all the waves contain the ocean. — Rich
An ocean without waves is extremely easy to imagine as is the opposite (one big wave). One only need to exercise creative imagination. — Rich
I don't see how you can say this, because when the ocean is calm there is still an ocean but no waves. So it is impossible that the waves contain the ocean. — Metaphysician Undercover
A wave is a particular form. It is impossible to imagine a calm ocean as one big wave, because it does not have the appropriate form to be called a wave. — Metaphysician Undercover
But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? — Agustino
It's a wave without amplitude. — Rich
So this is the first premise. There is cause of movement of parts of your body which is not something external to your body, but it is properly a "cause" in the sense that the movement is not random. The second premise is that any living body is describable as parts which are moving in this way, described by the first premise. The conclusion is that this cause of movement is the cause of the living body. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is a significant difference. "I see the cup on the table" does not imply that "The cup is on the table". Nor is "I see the cup on the table" implied by "The cup is on the table". — Banno
Well, perhaps. But there is something you have not mentioned, that for my money is quite central.
"I see the cup on the table" is true just in the case that I see the cup on the table. It will be true even if the cup is not on the table, and I am deluded.
But "The cup is on the table" is true just in the case that the cup is indeed on the table.
That is a significant difference. "I see the cup on the table" does not imply that "The cup is on the table". Nor is "I see the cup on the table" implied by "The cup is on the table". — Banno
If someone were to tell me that they saw me in London yesterday then I would be quite right in saying that they didn't see (and couldn't have seen) me in London yesterday because I wasn't there. — Michael
Interesting. Can you set out for me the structure of this argument? — Banno
Third person: The cup is on the table.
First person:
I see that the cup is on the table
I believe that the cup is on the table
I know that the cup is on the table.
In that life, as hypothetical as your previous one, there’s no memory or indication that there was ever a different life. — Michael Ossipoff
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.