I've already put the theory out there that the I Ching is inherently a religious book

There certainly is growth of knowledge in the scientific world. People outside science tend to think "if Newton was wrong and now Einstein is wrong, what is the likelihood that the newest theory is right?" They have a false idea of the growth of science. I do wonder, though, if science has really been a success by predictions the brightest minds have made for it in the past

Is science really a "success" in general? What rate can we put on science as its predicted growth rate and how do we know this has been met?

By saying that even if theism is not confronted, atheism can still live, you admit that atheism has an intellectual and aesthetic system in it's own right. If atheism is really "a religion" as believers say, than this is all the more true. Atheists don't deny that belief is real. And an atheist can have faith while meditating in the sense that he abandons himself to reality. It's semantical whether this is "a religion". If you say "God is real and atheists know it", that is a claim that goes beyond the evidence and is perhaps "false faith". Whether fundamentalist religious people are spiritually mature is debatable. When this is said to them, pride is displayed in them. They need to get over the hunch that they have that everything has to make perfect sense and be perfectly clear. An Eastern guru migght say this is a holding on to their Egos too much

The thing about religious people is that the world and stuff like this "must make sense". It.must have a clear answer for them. But could God, Heaven, or Gods be testing their faith? Couldn't he allow the "absurd"? Believers turn out to be rationalists!!

Inauthentic temporality is a spurious infinity, one that goes nowhere and has no point

If a chair is half matter and half form, and it's form is constantly being replaced by new ones, then half of the identity of the object is constantly in flux. No sophistry can get around this.

That's a wonky statement

So, what do you bring me as an alternative to Christianity? — Gus Lamarch

If you want a religious tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

You and i believe we see the world. MU thinks he abstracts the world into his soul. He is so convinced he has the correct psychology and that we really abstract without knowing it that he can't see that he created this feeling of abstraction is his mind through lust for a devourment of scholastic books. "Reason is a whore" said Luther (about Aristotle btw)

You propose a Christianity which doesnt t retain belief that it can prove its own truth. This is a fiction. Christian arguments are refutable, so it is not a valid "alternative" . We have to try something else

Did the I Ching predict this for you? It is contingent that Christianity preceded freedom. It could have been another way. slave is not condemned in the Bible, for example

Christianity makes karma relative thru the mercy principle. You might say the "relational" trumps the absolute in their world view. The world, however, is absolute for them ( which I would agree with) and God's nature is too (I disagree). The world may or not be contingent (being understood thru "practical knowledge" ), and Aristotle 's categories may be compatible with Kant. However karma for a Kantian like myself is absolute. It is the only absolute discovered by speculation. Lastly, if it's possible for completely corrupted people to enjoy things, I wouldn't simply say with the Bible "the sun shines on the good and evil" . It seems they must be accounted for thievery of the universe, by the universe. Christians (among whom Kant was not one) are willing to believe with certainty that they are sinners BECAUSE they have a remedy before them in the cross of Jesus. If you take away atonement, they would ask the "what have I truly done wrong". All that can be said to them at that point is that justice rules over us all. That is absolute

I didn't realize this was noticible lol. I was born in Rome and have been an American citizen since I was a teenager. Life in the USA is fast but for me it has moved slowly, and I am now almost 35. English was my study since a young age so, now, it's my primary language by far. If anyone is interested, I wanted to research the philosophical sides of Giovanni Gentiles and compare them to Heidegger

I'm from Italy actually, but my residency is in the US. Thank you for asking

It's got to be a silent actress.

That style was only done in Hollywood in that era. I'm guessing a world war 1 scarlet

That's brilliant!

It seems to me that "having" has mostly to do with the Prime mover then, whether or not this is impersonal or personal. I wonder what a relation would be in the Kantian world which was not cause and effect

Projection was to always put the truth in the future; it's like having a friesby that you keep tossing away once it returns to you. Hegel and Heidegger were the greatest products, or should I say projects, of Germany. Husserl was a genuine man, fish he even looks like a civil war General without the stress

So my argument on Parmenides and Heidegger is that both went through every contingent truth until the necessary truth was found. Only that Parmenides was an ancient, more akin to our distant ancestors

I don't know what the I Ching predicts, but MY prediction is that the future will only have ezistentialists. Look to the future

The books are The bible in India by Louis Jacolliot and The Discovery of Genesis by Kang and Nelson.

Here's a joke, sorta: what's my favorite passage in the Bible? When the snake turns into the staff in the hand of Moses because of the burning bush. Wink..

What if I spoke in English "I'm willing to exercise restraint if it will hurt their cause". Does it mean you want this certain cause to feel the hurt or not? It's ambiguous because the sentence doesn't have a context. Yet even with a context of could be see how it could be unambiguous. So you need more than common sense to understand what someone meant if they said that. You need a cosmic context

I hope Xtrix responds, but in would like a try at a little response.

Heidegger 's thoughts were always in projection. Once he found a truth he projected it.. Being the first existential philosopher, this was only natural and it was natural for him to tear through the continuity of his thoughts in search of One thought that would hold forever

People in manias have apophenia. Religious people too, which we have to remember because the I Ching is a religious book!

Wasn't it Heirider or some name like that who at the time of the French Revolution said that the German language excluded concepts like Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? I use to think to myself "what would it matter if I learned German and read the original Hegel? After all, I would have the same concepts, right? I would simply now be gaining my ideas via a new arrangement of sounds and images in my head." I've been told I was wrong. Maybe I wasnt making proper linguistic leaps when I thought like that; and maybe Nietzsche was right when he wrote that Hegel was the most German of philosophers because from Hegel the German cadences rolled from the pen

That's an even better example of dialectic than Zeno's paradox. Some thing can have edges but be unbounded. My conclusion is that the law of explosion is wrong.

How can a sphere be unbounded?

I think Duns Scotus's principle of "less than a numerical unity", and the "principle of explosion" ( see Wikipedia), are relevant here (although we have to take caution), if anyone happens to know anything about these principles on this forum

The infinitesimal vs the infinite. — apokrisis

Isn't is really the FINITE vs the infinitesimal? The infinitesimal is infinite in it's own right. It's interesting that you say that the continuous and discrete measure each other though

Hegel I believe was the first thorough process philosopher in the West. He still has something discreet at the end of the process: the Absolute. When he writes on the continuous and discrete, he is rightfully perhaps wary of calculus, perhaps having read The Analyst. And he puts the discrete and continuous side by side and says they work together. Along with the OP, I've felt that objects (even rivers) have an irrational merging of the discrete with the continuous within them. This is likely to be confusing for humans well into the future. Zeno is not dead

I don't think humans are completely bound by their languages. They can find some way to express or at least think of ideas that are difficult in their language

I agree with what you've written on this thread. I think for Heidegger, time is meditation on being by the Kantian self

You bring up an interesting point which applies to eymology. All too often a scholar will believe a coincidence to be something casual instead. Have you ever researched aliens and what the probability is that they exist? I mean actually to put a percent on the likelihood they are here and have visited earth. Once we break things down technically like that, it's not hard to see that finding causality in these matters is far harder than one might initially think.

I have a book which argues that the Bible originated in India and another book that says it originated in China. There are books on any idea you can imagine. I do have a book on the I Ching and I read the Intro and first chapter but it got too dry and technical for me. Interestly, traditional Japaneses, says this book, thought they lost the war because they didn't consult I Ching. It's respected in all Oriental nations I guess

Your argument fails because you didnt prove that the "necessary" is... necessary! You have combined two very different definitions of contingent. One is the scientific definition: that physical things can be done to objects. This has nothing at all to do with a philosophical theory of contingency where material things are inherently in need of something or somebody necessary. The world could be (in the philosophical sense) contingent, necessary (Spinoza), or even neither. I've seen it over and over again on this forum: people try to argue for God or Gods by mushing two discrete ideas into one. It's simply fallacious

A traditionalist Aristotelian once told me that Buddhists were stupid people. He would have accepted G.K. Chesterton's quotation that "a healthy mind can accept a paradox", but failed to implement this thru a realization that there is an Easy and West in all of us. The mind wants to dominate, and reasonings can be a whore (said Luther).

Autocorrect changed koan to loan in my last post. That's why it didn't seem to make sense lol

Keep in mind that priests believe that they eat Jesus's live body every day at Mass. Uh this theology is supposed to save the West? I prefer The Big Bang Theory kids to that

It seems to me that intense meditation and use of loans violate Einstein's principle, but maybe craziness is the end result of all human life

Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to group them tightly and might have overlooked important details

Yet wouldn't Buddhism be insanity in Einstein's eyes: "doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"?

I'm not going to argue with you over exegesis. I'll just say that even traditionalists priests who believe homosexuality is a sin will sometimes openly call themselves one of Christ's brides