Theism is absurd too. What father would let his daughter be raped as a child for three years simply because she could gain infinite joy from it after death? I thought creation mirrors God? What an ugly God!

An infinite past implies the possibility of an infinity of humans, which is absurd

words can mean anything, but language works within a social setting. With full stereo vision, a person can literally see space,and we all feel time. The connection between humans create the thoughts we think. How we decided which words mean which thoughts I do not know. But language doesn't speak us. It isn't an obstacle to intellectualization

How i understand post-structuralism and deconstruction (please don't try to make a distinction or you will break my mind) is that language forms a whole and we can only think of some words at a time in a sentence, so we can't know truth because we are stuck in the world of sentences.

Compatabilism is essential to understanding pre-established harmony. If we are being, potential naturally actualizes. So there is no need for a God. We can know we are being. though the mind might weaken the intellect can be stong. Derrida seemed unwilling to enjoy intellect without knowing the Absolute.

Reference? — Mww

Its pretty obvious if you study his religious writings that Kant loved what Hume had to write on miracles. Kant put the world in our minds, our heads themselves in our minds. He did this in order to protect regularities. Heidegger had a more realistic approach in his arguments about "being in the future". Technically, there is no way to know what a cup will do when you reach to drink your coffee

Kant was trying to deny the resurrection as surely as he was angry with Hume. God could make the world chaotic in our eyes to arouse faith. In a theistic universe or a Humean one, regularities are not guaranteed

So Kant doesn't believe in miracles?

1) saying that reality must have cause is very western, thomistic, Kantian,.and wrong. Kant attacked Spinoza as much as Hume. Hume didn't like the God noumena of Sponoza, but objects can move as.spontaneously as a deity if Spinoza was right

2) scientist slip up all the time and say like "we will use this math instead.of that one". I'm convinced they use The Secret and if we are God, that makes sense. It's so bizarre they think they can prove the cosmological things within a materialistic paradigm. Math describes matter in a very limited precise way

Morning thoughts

One last point, a scientist should say "if memory serves i saw the objects fall at the same rate ten times." To say " objects fall at the same rate" is to adopt objects as platonic objects.

Imo scentists are sorcerers and philosophers are the unbiased thinkers. The former looks for games to play ( that's their psychology), the latter quest for truth. The general philosophical system of African philosophy would probably agree with me. Ey moderns

They say "we just need to change the math a little on that one", admitting that they are changing, not describing, nature, which may be indescribable

The model has plenty of irrelevant math and it's basic.principles are analogies of nature

Women aren't stupid. They are very intuitive with regard to other people

It could be God or anything the human imagination can think of pulling the strings. Scientist think they understand matter, but can't prove that. Kant tried to defend regularities but it all fails. I think consciousness effects matter more than we know. Heidegger implies as much. This could explain how scientist make things. There i s no relation between sciences model and reality. They are wrong to think they can model reality anyway. Their statistics are flawed too. Something as basic as whether space-time push us into the chair, pulls us, or opens up to let it rest are still debated by scientists. Your senses can't feel the laws of nature, so there I no access to them even in they exist

By what standard do you say science is successful. They've gone ape shot of matter and been able to make some things. Who's to say it's successful enough or that there aren't alternate reasons for how they created what they did?

I think free will is discrete too

I think consciousness is decrete, not continuous. I.don't like when people ask "what do you mean by consciousness" because it's completely obvious.

Physicists with fat heads are saying this year that mathematics now can prove causation and not simply correlation. Hume disproved this centuries ago. I don't think physicists know any objective truth from their field. They are too Kantian

We don't start with all mathematics in our minds. We figure math out by synthesis. That was kants point. You cannt prove there is math out there Platonically. Same with spiritual beings. Kant had a clear distinction between noumena and God, the spiritual and the material. Latter German idealists denied this distinction

It sounds like a normal philosophical argument to me. I like it

Free will is always going to be a mystery, although saying so does make Sam Harris mad. I can be sure someone won't change of if I know him well despite the fact that he chooses his actions. To accept a paradox is natural faith and the sign of healthy basic thinking

Does this help illuminate my Heidegger passage?: "All our reasonings concerning matters of fact are founded on a species of Analogy." Hume

"Ontologically, Da-sein is in principle different from everything objectively present and real. It's 'content' is NOT founded in the substantiality of a substance, but in the 'self-constancy' of the existing self whose being was conceived as care... Along with this, we must establish what possible ontological questions are to be directed toward the 'self', if it is neither substance nor subject."

So again, it seems like action instead of being is the foundation of the world for him. Very modern. Also sounds Buddhistic

I can't cite a passage at the moment (sorry) but as I get to the end of B&Y I keep feeling like his sense of potentiality and reality go backwards, almost as if we live life in reverse.

Imo Augustine was dead wrong, as dead wrong as he is dead. The contingent is not inferior to the necessary because life is the best it can be (if we make it so). The necessary is just potentiality. The changeless (a black hole?) is not superior to the mutable. I don't think he was wise, I don't think he was smart, I don't like him and I think he was a nerd.

The closest thing to Heideggers thought in the history of philosophy before him was Aristotle's idea of final causality. Instead of saying the prime mover started everything, Aristotle turned causality on its head and said the prime mover acted as a posterior cause instead of a prior one. Modern philosophy is essentially about putting the cart before the horse. I like that because it's counter intuitive

A triangle cannot be separated from its angles. Matter and form don't exist though as a triangle exists with its angles. Aristotle was trying to make a dualistic distinction in objects. It's completely ad hoc. Why not three principles in an object instead of two? Why not five. A chair is just a chair. There is nothing universal about it. Thinking about universals is just a psychological state

"How do you put on a shirt of empty sky"

I think Aristotle was wrong to believe the universe could be eternal. You would have to say, if he was right, that there could have been an infinite number of cats who lived, for example. I think the whole idea is irrational. Potentiality slipped into actuality by its nature, and Time began. Or change, if you will.

Traditional philosophy says a substance is the core of the universe; modern philosophy says an action can be the essence of our reality. That's all I got for now. Will be reading Being and Time the rest of the day..

I'm almost finished reading Being and Time. I think "care" is properly translated. Caring, or giving a fuck, is the essence of the world

Thanks for the post. I think change is what we experience and Time is a mystical idea we have. With mystical things they are kinda outside us and kinda within, and they are near impossible to analyze. I don't think matter cannot think. Thomists, being poor at philosophy, think they can fully understand what matter is and delineate what it can do. I don't know what survival skills we have because of our ability to think about philosophy. Maybe it simply keeps our mental juices flowing. And I don't know about timeless truth. Eternity doesn't exist outside a black hole though. Nominalism, nevertheless, is not an evil philosophy. Two humans are very similar. They have differences as well. What more is needed to understand humans? Why must we posit two principles in them (matter and form)? Why not one principle for each human and each human being very similar (which is obvious)? The mentality of Feser and company boils down to a psychology that has to categorize in a certain way. I believe they are far from wiasom. Thanks again for the post!

In his first published work Hegel, after the the preface and introduction, immediately starts expounding on the "paradox" of time. I personally don't see the problem. The present merely moves forward constantly within metaphysical nothing. Time exists but past doesnt. The future doesn't exist except as a present. So I don't see a true paradox. Whether the present is in our heads or outside i don't find to be a fruitful topic of discussion.

I don't see a problem with nominalism either. Are two men more similar or dissimilar? That's the only aspect in which the question has meaning. Feser is an idiot. He insists he can prove God exists separate from us and the wheat hylomorphism thing. When asked to prove it he makes up a bunch of empty categories. He is also arrogant

Hume is important to understanding Heidegger too. The reason for existence is consciousness. The universe as a whole doest have a cause, or a meaning apart from consciousness within temporaliy. In Being and Time he rejects God as an explanation for conscience. It is rather paradoxical

I find that Heidegger is a lot like Aristotle in his thinking except that we are the Prime Movers, the final cause which the potentiality of the world revolves around. Being comes upon us thru conscience and beauty. Hegel is the link between Heidegger and Aristotle.

Would Aristotle say geometry is true because of matter or because of the Prime Mover?

It's impossible for me to be an atheist while on a psychedelic. It's a mystical God though. Anyone who says they can prove there is a God are not talking about the true God because it's no longer mystical. Be mystical or be an atheist i say. Otherwise you're a nerd

I've done regular DMT and am sure it was the same thing as dreams I had as a kid. Both were similar and great. Same chemical. 5meo dmt is scarier and deeper i hear. My best friend has been doing it lately. He said suchly. I refuse to try it

Nice! I was there a year in 2004-2005 but then left because I lost traditional faith. They told me "its natural to believe in God." I said that maybe Hume was right in saying the meaning of the universe comes from within the universe instead of from with-out. They responded " that's unnatural thinking" and were glad I left. I struggle a lot with how much to trust my common sense because it was formed by Catholicism. On this very thread I'm doubting the objectivity of patterns and maybe doing so because I doubt the existence of a deity as well. Philosophy is SO fun. But it can be hell sometimes

The college I went to was Thomas Aquinas college in Santa Paula CA. They believed logic and math to be separate disciplines and that basing math on logic was unnatural. The reason I brought it up was because their position seems more in accord with common sense to me, and my rejection of their position is making me doubt patterns now

Chaos vs symmetry... That's a lot to think about. It's deep. Maybe because I suck at math in trying to make up for it by over thinking this stuff. Maybe there are truths that simply can't be said. The college I went to after high school was Catholic and they hated basing math on logic. I feel like I'm trying to do something similar, but I like it.