Looks interesting, thanks apo.

Hegel is like all those who make ontological arguments that presume the intelligibility of the world must reflect the already existing intelligibilty of a comprehending and reasoning mind. — apokrisis


But 'synthetic a priori judgements' are possible. In other words, certain predictions can be made infallibly, on the basis of premises that don't necessarily entail that conclusion by logic alone. The mind has the ability to penetrate, to some extent, the nature of things, purely on the basis of reason alone. The whole history of science is evidence of that. — Wayfarer

And yet this possibility of 'synthetic a priori judgements' tells us nothing, ontologically speaking. You say the mind "has the ability to penetrate to some extent"; how can you possibly judge the extent of the mind's penetration and what are the absolute conditions that enable it?

But that whole debate between Schelling and Hegel, and what Emerson and Peirce make of it, bespeaks great confusion as far as I am concerned. I think on such matters I prefer Soyen Shaku,

Are you familiar with the "whole debate" in all its intricacies?

Don't we all know what feeling is? — Janus

I just wanted to know what you meant. So you meant emotion, right? That's how I'm reading each instance of the world "feeling" in your subsequent post, now, given your response. The definition of "feeling" is never at all clear to me, in these discussions.

How do you think we would experience that other than as a feeling? It cannot be merely an idea, no? — Janus

Is an experience of blinding, unexpected sunlight a "feeling", or is it an "idea"? Or, is it something else entirely?

The reality of the experience is in the reality of the feeling, isn't it? — Janus

The reality of the (emotion)? No.

but we don't even know what God's independent reality could mean, any more than we know what the independent reality of anything we experience could mean. — Janus

Oh? If "feeling" just meanings "emotion", and if that's our only experiential pipeline to God, then sure...

So, for you God cannot be both in and beyond our experience? — Janus

No, that's not true per my view. What made you think so?

If God cannot "escape the realm of experience" then he cannot be an independent entity at all, but would remain confined to the human feeling of his presence. — Janus

And I didn't say that; what made you assume I meant this?

I described how experience is unescapable. Pure and simple. I made no assumptions about how this relates to God, in that specific paragraph. I'd be happy to clear up the distinction and then move on to bringing in the problem of God into that reality.

If we think of God as the origin of our experience, of our very selves, then logically in that sense we need him more than he needs us. — Janus

No; why would that follow? Why assume that "created needs creator", and yet "creator needs not created"? I see no logical series there.

If your previous answer was just a declaration of inability, then I'm content with that. It's enough to show that you just assume a whole lot of stuff. — Πετροκότσυφας

You're right; I routinely declare my inability, and do my best to show that I assume a whole lot of stuff. It's my duty as a philosophy forum member; nay, it's my duty as a student of the neurotic insanity of Western Thought.

Right, so next time a thread like this comes up, we'd better post poems, songs and paintings instead of using phrases like "A single, infinite, eternal, primordial, free, un-grounded Being which is the emanator of existence" pretending they say something that makes sense. — Πετροκότσυφας

Are you making fun of me because you sincerely think I'm an idiot, or because your logical mind can't extricate itself from it's series of logical proofs in order to entertain the possibility of a reality that exists beyond logical thought? And thus ad homs are the only defense against the gaping black hole of the possibility of your entire philosophical structure having weak foundations? I'm asking in good faith.

I don't misquote, that's what I mean by bad usage. — Πετροκότσυφας

Thank God!

The doctor's metaphor for birth does not merely refer to a name (birth). — Πετροκότσυφας

What doctor is using a metaphor for birth, and where? A doctor literally gives birth to babies; that is, a doctor who's job it is to do so.

Your metaphor instead refers to nothing specific, it just refers to a name which you use for something you can't even describe. — Πετροκότσυφας

I mean this sincerely; you seem to not understand what a metaphor is. I gave a provisional definition earlier, if you're interested.

Apropos of nothing. — Πετροκότσυφας

The etymology of words and their metaphorical changes are apropos of nothing, yes, absolutely.

I just wanted to know what you meant. So you meant emotion, right? That's how I'm reading each instance of the world "feeling" in your subsequent post, now, given your response. The definition of "feeling" is never at all clear to me, in these discussions. — Noble Dust

A feeling is an affect; it is being-affected, moved. Not all feeling are emotions in the ordinary sense of the emotions we categorize: fear. anxiety, love, hate, jealousy, lust, greed and so on.

No, that's not true per my view. What made you think so? — Noble Dust

This:

Because, as I've attempted to argue many times, experience is reality. Nothing escapes the realm of experience, — Noble Dust

Although I suppose if God is nothing then he can escape the realm of experience.

Is an experience of blinding, unexpected sunlight a "feeling", or is it an "idea"? Or, is it something else entirely? — Noble Dust

That is experience of the empirical

kind, about which we can have not only feelings but definite ideas that are determinably correct or incorrect.: we are not discussing that.

The reality of the (emotion)? No. — Noble Dust

I hope it is obvious I am speaking about experiences that are not of empirical objects.

No; why would that follow? Why assume that "created needs creator", and yet "creator needs not created"? I see no logical series there. — Noble Dust

Because logically if we are created by a creator then we are dependent on that creator in an obvious way that the creator is not, purely logically speaking, dependent on us, and certainly not on any one of us; and not even ontologically dependent on us unless all events are absolutely necessary unfolding of God's nature, that is, determined.

That's a virtue, you're lucky to have it. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well, I wrote that response sarcastically, but then re-read it after I posted it, and noticed that it had a sincere meaning as well. Take it as an Artist's Statement. Dare I say a metaphorical statement? Ah, the beauty of metaphor: it's interpretation depends on the interpreter.

You're asking in good faith, assuming my bad faith. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, because the majority of your response two replies ago to me was an insult.

I think I do. If you think I don't point to my misunderstanding. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right. It has to do with what the metaphor refers to. The doctor's metaphor for birth does not merely refer to a name (birth). It ultimately refers to that that the name refers to. Your metaphor instead refers to nothing specific, it just refers to a name which you use for something you can't even describe. — Πετροκότσυφας

In this paragraph, you mysteriously refer to "the doctor's metaphor"; I have no idea what that is. Then your sentences which I quoted follow. I honestly don't understand what you mean. It looks as if you don't understand what I mean by metaphor, but maybe that's not the case.

If you imply that "the etymology of words and their metaphorical changes" is related to "That means it's the structure of how we perceive the world through experience.", then feel free to clarify on it. — Πετροκότσυφας

What I'm trying to point out (and maybe haven't so far) is that much of language consists of "dead metaphors". I brought this up specifically because you seemed to be dismissing metaphor as having any philosophical weight.

it is being-affected, moved. — Janus

Sorry again, but given the use of "being" in this thread, I'm not sure what this means.

Not all feeling are emotions in the ordinary sense of the emotions we categorize: fear. anxiety, love, hate, jealousy, lust, greed and so on. — Janus

I think I get the sense; would nostalgia, or the stronger feeling underneath nostalgia (almost Plato's remembering, if you know what I mean), count as a feeling, then?

No, that's not true per my view. What made you think so?
— Noble Dust

This:
Because, as I've attempted to argue many times, experience is reality. Nothing escapes the realm of experience,
— Noble Dust — Janus

Ah, right. I do tend to muddle my terms, in part because I'm a hobbyist, and in part because I'm rusty, not having posted here much recently. Let me try again.

When I say "experience is reality", I mean that nothing within our personal windshield view of life exists outside of experience. This actually seems stupid and nonsensical because of how obvious it is, but the reason I feel the need to bring this up is that, in philosophy, abstract logical arguments are bandied about with such rapier-like dexterity, that, amongst all the expert jabs and defenses, the simple reality of experience (the jousting rink itself) gets forgotten. But not only that; emotions and mental states (states of self-imposed "reality") do the same thing; they create a world. But all of these worlds, imposed and helped by various mental and spiritual faculties, all exist within experience.

So, now, in regards to God: God represents, in this metaphor, the jousting rink itself. And yes, that was not clear previously in my posts. Does that make more sense?

That is experience of the empirical

kind, about which we can have not only feelings but definite ideas that are determinably correct or incorrect.: we are not discussing that. — Janus

I meant that as a metaphor.

Because logically if we are created by a creator then we are dependent on that creator in an obvious way that the creator is not, purely logically speaking, dependent on us, and certainly not on any one of us; and not even ontologically dependent on us unless all events are absolutely necessary unfolding of God's nature, that is, determined. — Janus

I disagree. What is a creator without a creation? Certainly not a creator.

I disagree. What is a creator without a creation? Certainly not a creator. — Noble Dust

If you are a creator your being does not depend on that. You might create paintings for example, but you will still exist if you do not. On the other the created; the paintings, will not exist if you do not create them.

The rest later.

No, you're missing what I'm saying. A creator is not a creator unless something is created. A painter is not a painter until a painting is painted.

God is not necessarily merely a creator, though. So his necessary existence does not logically depend on him creating anything, whereas the existence of what he creates does so depend..

God is known to us only as a feeling, however faint or profound. and an imagining or intuition, however vague or vivid. — Janus

That does leave something out, namely, the idea of there being a revealed truth.

How would we discuss it "under the heading of philosophy of religion" other than by thinking "about God, transcendence and the like" by following "our imaginations and the logic of whatever we can, however vaguely, imagine."? Is there another methodology separate from imagination and logic when it comes to metaphysics or philosophy of religion or whatever you want to call it, and if so what do you think it is? — Janus

I mean, aside from what is felt about it, there is a domain of discourse. The meaning of the ideas that have been debated in the history of the subject, aren’t simply a matter of feeling, even though ‘feeling’ is indeed central to it. I do acknowledge my own grasp of the formal or traditional debates on such matters is rudimentary but I would still like to consider these ideas through those perspectives rather than consigning the whole matter to feeling.

yet this possibility of 'synthetic a priori judgements' tells us nothing, ontologically speaking. You say the mind "has the ability to penetrate to some extent"; how can you possibly judge the extent of the mind's penetration and what are the absolute conditions that enable it? — Janus

The computer you’re writing that on, could never have been developed without the facility I’m referring to. What it means is that we can have certain knowledge of some things, beyond the scope of perception - we know some things must be the case, even though we can’t see the evidence for those things at the time we make that prediction. A case in point are the many correct predictions of the theory of relativity which, at the time they were made, were not able to be empirically validated. But as the apparatus improved, the results come in, which, as far as I know, have always amounted to: ‘Einstein proved right, again’. (@Apokrisis - am I wrong here?)

God is not necessarily merely a creator, though. — Janus

What else would God be?

So his necessary existence does not logically depend on him creating anything, whereas the existence of what he creates does so depend.. — Janus

That necessary existence in which nothing was created, then, would be something completely incomprehensible to created beings like us (or non-created if you like, atheistically). Which essentially renders that idea incomprehensible.

Again, consider the aphorism: A painter is only a painter once a painting is painted.

In other words, the existence from which you are currently discursively arguing, is the painting itself. You can't actually ask whether the painter could be a painter without the painting, because the painting is the perspective from which you're trying to apprehend the painter; the method through which you came to exist (as an member of the painting).

That does leave something out, namely, the idea of there being a revealed truth. — Wayfarer

But the idea of there being a revealed truth is either a feeling or a thought that is part of the experience of revelation, or it is a feeling or thought about the experience that comes after.
So, I have a vision accompanied by a profound felling of ecstasy: what I see is just an image; its real significance lies in what I feel about it.

I mean, aside form what is felt about it, there is a domain of discourse. — Wayfarer

But that domain of discourse consists in what others have felt and imagined, and thought about what they had felt and imagined.

The computer you’re writing that on, could never have been developed without the facility I’m referring to. — Wayfarer

But that still says nothing at all about the ontological status of the computer.

What else would God be? — Noble Dust

An infinite being absorbed in absolute ecstasy, for example. ;)

In the Christian vision God creates the world from nothing at a particular time, in the sense that the world has not always existed. God, on the other hand, has always existed, so logically, creating, on that view, cannot be all there is to God.

In other words, the existence from which you are currently discursively arguing, is the painting itself. — Noble Dust

I can't see the relevance here. We finite temporal beings try to think from the 'point of view' of an eternal infinite being. If we simply cannot do that at all, then saying that God is either dependent upon or independent of us would be equally empty and nonsensical; as would any discourse about God at all.

An infinite being absorbed in absolute ecstasy, for example. — Janus

But that's nonsensical; it doesn't apply to experience, theology, or...anything else, as far as I can see. It's purely abstract, which is to say, nonsensical. So, my question of what God could possibly be, other than a creator, still stands.

In the Christian vision God creates the world from nothing at a particular time, in the sense that the world has not always existed. — Janus

God doesn't create the world at a particular time if time itself is an aspect of the world that he created. So, in this view, God creating the world would be an emanation from eternity. I know that sounds vague, but what I mean is that God, eternally existant, would actionally express himself in such a way so as to create a reality in which time is also created as a function of said reality.

God, on the other hand, has always existed, so creating on that view cannot be all there is to God. — Janus

I think this stunts the concept of creation. Take Tielhard's view, for example. God is an ever-evolving entity; creation, in his view, is an ever-evolving process that is part and parcel to God. Creation isn't an act within time that didn't exist, and then did exist. Creation is an aspect of God; an ever-evolving process. As humans, our participation in that creative act manifests itself as precious little dips into the river. Dips into the river which are often refreshing, profound, and life-giving.

I can't see the relevance here. We finite temporal beings try to think from the 'point of view' of an eternal infinite being. — Janus

But I wasn't saying that within that specific metaphor of the painting; in that metaphor, the painting is reality (the thing which God created). I was trying to point out that we all, ultimately, think from the perspective of experience: "the painting itself".

If we simply cannot do that at all, then saying that God is either dependent upon or independent of us would be equally empty and nonsensical; as would any discourse about God at all. — Janus

Well, there I'm open more to interpretation, because it's not clear to me at all whether we are dependent on God, or whether God is dependent on us, or some other state. And all for the reasons and arguments I've laid out here. But my intuition, for what it's worth, is that God has a greater need for us than we know.

So, I have a vision accompanied by a profound felling of ecstasy: — Janus

I actually meant, by revealed truth, documents including The Bible. The ‘domain of discourse’ is about more than ‘feelings’, as it also describes alleged historical instances and events and then reflection on and discussion of those events. It’s not simply subjective.

that still says nothing at all about the ontological status of the computer. — Janus

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

But that's nonsensical; it doesn't apply to experience, theology, or...anything else, as far as I can see. — Noble Dust

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.

God doesn't create the world at a particular time if time itself is an aspect of the world that he created. So, in this view, God creating the world would be an emanation from eternity. I know that sounds vague, but what I mean is that God, eternally existant, would actionally express himself in such a way so as to create a reality in which time is also created as a function of said reality. — Noble Dust

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?

I think this stunts the concept of creation. Take Tielhard's view, for example. God is an ever-evolving entity; creation, in his view, is an ever-evolving process that is part and parcel to God. — Noble Dust

Yes, but I haven't argued that other views such that God is dependent on his creation, is not omnipotent, is an evolving being, and so on; are not possible; I was merely trying to elaborate the logic of the Christian understanding of God as transcendent being.

I was trying to point out that we all, ultimately, think from the perspective of experience: "the painting itself". — Noble Dust

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

But my intuition, for what it's worth, is that God has a greater need for us than we know. — Noble Dust

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

as it also describes alleged historical instances and events — Wayfarer

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.

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 being — Janus

See my initial comment. >:O

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!

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 — Janus

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!

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. :)

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