3 of 4
3
God impotent or evil?
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2818
Joined  2005-04-29

Prescription for Salt Creek: one to two doses of pure blotter acid to be taken one hour prior to biology class, back in 8th grade.

You’ll of course need first to invent a time machine.

 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
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12
[quote author=“Salt Creek”]I wanted you to read it to to try to get you to envision that the moon was out there doing its thing, 350 million years before human consciousness emerged. The reefs are rife with evidence. If it is not fun for you to think about this, feel free to skip the seminar.

No, I have no problem whatsoever.  What I’m saying is certainly “something” was there - else how did we get here? - but it most certainly was not “moon.”  “Moon” is a human concept to describe an object oribiting the “earth” which orbits the “sun” in a “galaxy” in a “universe” which was not “caused/not caused” blah blah blah ...

If only microscopic organisms existed, they could not perceive anything so macro and huge as to constitue a “moon.”  Everything in the universe from their point of view would “appear” entirely different than to us, and we can’t imagine how - some fuzzy uniform mist? - there really is is no point in trying to think about it.  It would be “imaginary”, like god.

A “moon” certainly could exist on some level - some “thing” having an effect on the microscopic organs, but without a human to both perceive and name it “moon”, and to observe and name the effect “gravity”, those concepts would and can NOT “exist” as concepts, because in the entire universe as we know it, ONLY humans HAVE concepts.  “Something” “must have “existed”, but without humans: no concepts, no names, reality not organized in the way humans perceive and organize it.  “Reality” exists, but in what way?  If a universe existed but there was nobody there to conceive of it, did it “exist”?

Epistimology 101.

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12
[quote author=“homunculus”]Prescription for Salt Creek: one to two doses of pure blotter acid to be taken one hour prior to biology class, back in 8th grade.

NOW you’re talkin’  8)

Though in my day we started in about 11th grade, and I really wish I had waited until about mid-20’s.

Going through adolescence was hard enough without psychedelics. :idea:

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
[quote author=“mahahaha”]No, I have no problem whatsoever.  What I’m saying is certainly “something” was there - else how did we get here? - but it most certainly was not “moon.”  “Moon” is a human concept to describe an object oribiting the “earth” which orbits the “sun” in a “galaxy” in a “universe” which was not “caused/not caused” blah blah blah ...

I think you’re begging off a bit here, by ascribing any significance whatsoever to the tetragrammaton “MOON”.

And that, my humble friend, is just why I appreciate mathematics such as I know it. Though you may assert that mathematics is a human creation, at the very least, it is not such a prisoner of semantics, in the sense that the word “moon” is. I don’t expect it to pass muster with you, but some sort of rudimentary counting is done by any lioness who eats some, but not all, of her young.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Well it all comes down to Kant and Descartes. Descartes separated us from bodies and Kant separated us from knowing things in themselves. So its no wonder you have Bishop Berkeley making the ridiculous statement that to be is to be perceived. We continue down this path with rorty and his ilk. We need to return to the ancients. They started with the world instead of Descartes egocentric I. Our first principle should not be I am rather it should be the world is. Then an only then you can plant your right foot into that cat and send it squealing though the rain soaked air.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
[quote author=“mahahaha”][quote author=“homunculus”]Prescription for Salt Creek: one to two doses of pure blotter acid to be taken

NOW you’re talkin’  8)

Though in my day we started in about 11th grade, and I really wish I had waited until about mid-20’s.

Going through adolescence was hard enough without psychedelics. :idea:

Recipe for the “been there, done that” syndrome.  :D

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
[quote author=“frankr”]Then an only then you can plant your right foot into that cat and send it squealing though the rain soaked air.

The more I find out about people, the more I like my cat.

You should appreciate cats, Frank, as they tend to shore up the concept of the “impotent” rather than of the “evil” Deity.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 09:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12
[quote author=“frankr”]Well it all comes down to Kant and Descartes. Descartes separated us from bodies and Kant separated us from knowing things in themselves. So its no wonder you have Bishop Berkeley making the ridiculous statement that to be is to be perceived. We continue down this path with rorty and his ilk. We need to return to the ancients. They started with the world instead of Descartes egocentric I. Our first principle should not be I am rather it should be the world is. Then an only then you can plant your right foot into that cat and send it squealing though the rain soaked air.

You’re on the right track, but you are leaving out the other side of the globe, my xenophobic friend.  There are the Chinese for example -  remember them?  You should, because they will likely be your masters some day, if things don’t turn around in the USA pretty quick (like 86’ing the Christians - who so f***ed everything up -  from our government).  The Chinese have traditions such as Taoism, and Ch’an (Taoism with a Buddhist flavor, the precusor to Japanese Zen) which are overtly mystical and trump most of traditional western philosophy.

Then there are the Indians - the Aryan from India kind - way back in the day they came up with the Upanishads, and spawned a few philosophical heavyweights such as Shankara.  Try wrapping your head around them some day.  Also check out other Indian traditions - such as Buddhism, which began there and spread throughout Asia, notably to Tibet.  Then there are the Sikhs, who took most of the good stuff from Hinduism and jettisoned a lot of the crap, like the caste system.

Even the hated Muslims (the only religion worse than Christianity) have a mystical tradition known as Sufism.

Bottom line:  I have a hard on for the mystics - all of them - but there is good reason.  I highly recommend expanding your reading list, and your consciousness may follow   8)

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Can I still kick the cat?

I am a bit lost mahahaha. You seem to espousing Kantian view of reality. Did I mistake your noumena phenomena moon talk. Was it really a nod to the East. Your philosophical musings on the moon seem more in tune with Kant than with Confuscious.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“frankr”]Can I still kick the cat?

I am a bit lost mahahaha. You seem to espousing Kantian view of reality. Did I mistake your noumena phenomena moon talk. Was it really a nod to the East. Your philosophical musings on the moon seem more in tune with Kant than with Confuscious.

Another kick at the cat: I took mahahaha’s musings on moon as a comment on the distinction between language and reality along the lines of Chung Tzu and the name is not the thing named.  Isn’t this the basic issue of all episteme?  How can we develop a language that allows us to match reality, and for given language, how good is the fit we can achieve?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 February 2007 12:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“burt”][quote author=“frankr”]Can I still kick the cat?

I am a bit lost mahahaha. You seem to espousing Kantian view of reality. Did I mistake your noumena phenomena moon talk. Was it really a nod to the East. Your philosophical musings on the moon seem more in tune with Kant than with Confuscious.

Another kick at the cat: I took mahahaha’s musings on moon as a comment on the distinction between language and reality along the lines of Chung Tzu and the name is not the thing named.  Isn’t this the basic issue of all episteme?  How can we develop a language that allows us to match reality, and for given language, how good is the fit we can achieve?

Right on, Burt.

frankr:  Confuscious was a sort of secular rationalist.  We are talking Taoism here.  Two different cats.

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2007 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“mahahaha”]
frankr:  Confuscious was a sort of secular rationalist.  We are talking Taoism here.  Two different cats.

Which is the black cat in the dark room?  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2007 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20

[quote author=“mahahaha”]You’re on the right track, but you are leaving out the other side of the globe

Thanks for reminding us of thoughts outside of the Western tradition born circa 385 AD.  It’s a shame we Westerners have also relegated to the waste basket the wisdom of our pagan ancestors.

[quote author=“mahahaha”]my xenophobic friend.

frankr may have the unsavory quality of being Christian, but he has not given the impression of being afraid of foreigners.  Ethnocentric, maybe, but not phobic.

[quote author=“mahahaha”]I highly recommend expanding your reading list

. . . outside of the western tradition.  The West is too caught up trying to relate everything to Jesus to notice other possibilities.  Even the Dalai Lama welcomes scientific discoveries which contradict Buddhist writings, and gladly moves the goalposts further out.  Muslims and Christians mount a goal-line defense instead.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2007 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“Skipshot”][quote author=“mahahaha”]You’re on the right track, but you are leaving out the other side of the globe

Thanks for reminding us of thoughts outside of the Western tradition born circa 385 AD.  It’s a shame we Westerners have also relegated to the waste basket the wisdom of our pagan ancestors.

[quote author=“mahahaha”]my xenophobic friend.

frankr may have the unsavory quality of being Christian, but he has not given the impression of being afraid of foreigners.  Ethnocentric, maybe, but not phobic.

[quote author=“mahahaha”]I highly recommend expanding your reading list

. . . outside of the western tradition.  The West is too caught up trying to relate everything to Jesus to notice other possibilities.  Even the Dalai Lama welcomes scientific discoveries which contradict Buddhist writings, and gladly moves the goalposts further out.  Muslims and Christians mount a goal-line defense instead.

_Some_ Muslims and _some_ Christians, bound up in dogma rather than the real spirit of their religions, mount a goal-line defense.  Let’s not tar all with the same brush. 

As for the wisdom of the East, we need to recall that there was a good deal of interaction between the Eastern and Western worlds in ancient times.  There were philosophers who travelled with Alexander on his conquests and it is possible to discert Greek influences in Buddhist teachings and vice versa, as well as Zoroastrian influences all over the place.  What happened with Justinian was the closing off of the path of knowledge in the West.  The philosophers from the Academy and other schools migrated to Persia, giving a major input into what eventually became Persian sufism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2007 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20

[quote author=“burt”]What happened with Justinian was the closing off of the path of knowledge in the West.

I’d say he made it a one-way street.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed