6 of 6
6
Sam's truthdig interview
Posted: 09 May 2006 05:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  50
Joined  2006-05-04

Actually what I am saying, frankr….

is look at you and what a fool you have become.  You, you, you.

You have yet to respond to the question of what it would take for you to believe god is before you.  Your certainty in the existence of god in your translations may prohibit your recognition of god’s immediate presence, some day.

Don’t worry.  There is no heaven or hell, so you won’t get in trouble for wasting your time with me.  Have a nice day, frankr.

Later.  god   8)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2006 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2807
Joined  2005-04-29

Does the concept signify a reality? When I write to homunculus or dave I write (i think) to a reality. I use the name to signify an existing thing namely you. I am not writing to a name. I am writing to what the name signifies. I disagree with you I think the concept points to a reality.

Sorry for the delayed response, Frank. I’m not completely certain that I understand your above statement. First, though, I have no problem with people on this forum calling me Dave. I have a last name as well, but I don’t reveal that to many people partly for security reasons, and partly because a Google search of my name brings up an assortment of people, one or two of whom I don’t want to be mistaken for.

“Does the concept signify a reality?”

I see reality as occupying a variety of levels of literality, none of them even resembling Platonic formalism which your tradition embraces. So I’d say that we are pretty much destined to be at odds with each other in this regard. But think about the various levels of literality that can be ascribed to each and every word that we use. For instance, my use of “destined” above. I don’t mean to use that word literally in one sense (i.e. casually), but in another deeper sense, it really could be taken literally. People deal with this sort of analysis all the time, only rarely if ever stopping to look under the surface.

Frank, I don’t buy into the concept of gods, so what else can reasonably be expected of my views on reality? To me low-level (to borrow a computer programming term) reality is not at all understood. Quantum mechanics is able to deal somewhat with it, making predictions, etc. But explaining it completely seems a long way off.

I hope I haven’t misinterpreted your question too badly.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 6
6
 
‹‹ Forum Surfing      Internet Infidels! ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed