• Janus
    4.3k
    as it also describes alleged historical instances and eventsWayfarer

    Sure, but historical events are not revelations; they are either the reports of actual or purported eyewitnesses or written reports of what had been previously handed down verbal reports of actual or purported eyewitnesses.

    Are you sure you know the significance of the ‘synthetic a priori’?Wayfarer

    I am well acquainted with the idea of the synthetic a priori, a fact which you should be well aware of from previous discussions; but from that it certainly does not follow that I believe it has the same significance, or even the same kind of significance, that you do.
  • Noble Dust
    2k


    Lol; we always end up agreeing more than we realize, you and I. Probably mostly because I'm not as well-read and not as experienced. So I tend to phrase things in my own way, which becomes problematic.

    It's basically the Hindu conception of Brahman: Satchitananda. I have said all along that theology is worked out from imagination and experience via logic. This is obviously one of the possibilities of God's infinite eternal existence that is capable of being imagined, so calling it "nonsense" won't do unless you are a logical positivist or something like that.Janus

    Understood. I've read the Upanishads and a little of the Gita, but obviously not enough to recognize the concept; or rather, I'm still too stuck in the Western ethos to quickly notice.

    None of that changes the fact that God is usually conceived to have always existed whereas the world is not. Everything said about God "sounds vague" because it is vague. If God 'actionally expresses himself in such a way to create a reality" then He must be prior to that act, logically speaking, no?Janus

    Yeah, I get your points here. But I'm honestly bored with all of the logical specifics; I really am, and I don't mean that as a cop out. Feel free to pry me more on those if you're unsure.

    My aphorism is still the thing that makes the most sense, within my view: the painter is only a painter once a painting has been painted. You can take that as a white flag or a rallying charge; I don't mean it as either. I'm open to whatever response you might have.

    I was merely trying to elaborate the logic of the Christian understanding of God as transcendent being.Janus

    Ok. I wasn't trying to do that; again, we've probably been talking past each other a bit; or at least, I've been talking past you to some extent.

    Well, that is just what I have been trying to point out all along. Experience consists in being affected, in feeling.Janus

    I tend think that way too rather than the Christian way of imaging God as an utterly self-dependent transcendent beingJanus

    See my initial comment. >:O
  • Janus
    4.3k
    Lol; we always end up agreeing more than we realize, you and I.Noble Dust

    It mostly does seem like that. Language is a tricky one.

    Understood. I've read the Upanishads and a little of the Gita, but obviously not enough to recognize the concept; or rather, I'm still too stuck in the Western ethos to quickly notice.Noble Dust

    I've long loved the idea. And yet I have often heard people claim that a state of permanent supreme ecstasy would become boring.Could that be true if there were no sense at all of time involved? I'd be willing to do the experiment. :)

    the painter is only a painter once a painting has been painted.Noble Dust

    I'll take that as a rallying charge, and my response is that I agree and that likewise God is only a creator once a creation has been created. What was the painter before she painted?

    Oddly enough (or not?) this thread has not been much about Hegel!
  • Noble Dust
    2k
    I've long loved the idea. And yet I have often heard people claim that a state of permanent supreme ecstasy would become boring.Could that be true if there were no sense at all of time involved? I'd be willing to do the experimentJanus

    The only possibility I've come up with is that it would be a totally different state of reality, existence, and experience; a state in which the question "wouldn't perfection get boring?" Is rendered meaningless. I've had glimpses of this possibility in dreams and feelings, and in art and creativity.

    Oddly enough (or not?) this thread has not been much about Hegel!Janus

    Whoops!
  • Janus
    4.3k
    The only possibility I've come up with is that it would be a totally different state of reality, existence, and experience; a state in which the question "wouldn't perfection get boring?" Is rendered meaningless. I've had glimpses of this possibility in dreams and feelings, and in art and creativity.Noble Dust

    Likewise. :)
  • Michael Ossipoff
    814
    I've long loved the idea. And yet I have often heard people claim that a state of permanent supreme ecstasy would become boring.Could that be true if there were no sense at all of time involved?

    No. Without time, there can't be boredom.

    Michael Ossipoff
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.