Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion.
No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved. — L'éléphant
So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world.
So, we're just gonna ignore the fact that your gender divide has a lot to do with how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world? Isn't this like a sleight of hand which makes your audience think you're saying two different things but really aren't? — L'éléphant
You know it would be nice if violence, hatred, etc are reduced if everyone viewed their actions as social events -- but opinions like this are just opinions. The reality is in statistics and studies. — L'éléphant
That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc).
What? No -- the reality of gender is the reason why our culture is like this, not the way you're describing it. I have no idea that in the year 2021 to 2022, gender has become synonymous with despicable crime! Why has gender become a dirty word? — L'éléphant
There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models.
There is. scientific american — L'éléphant
The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction.
I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer? — L'éléphant
And again, people speak of differences in gender as if it's criminal. No! historically, and pre-historically, men protected the women and children and hunted boars and bears and fought invaders. I don't understand why replacing gender with "physiological" is a good option and somehow makes us all "educated and refined". Gender has a lot to do with physiological. — L'éléphant
It can inductively be shown that the universe behaves like a language. On the most basic level, everything in the universe can be said to simply be information (regardless of what the universe is composed of on the higher level). Therefore, the universe can be said to be an arrangement of information. — Thinker108
Funny that you say that, I recently finished re-reading C.I. Lewis' Mind and World Order. He was the person that introduced "qualia" into the philosophical literature as we understand it today, and in effect, he was arguing that these things are helpful in so far as they are guide to actions. — Manuel
A contact of mine made this statement:
Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale. — Varde
That's one way to look at awareness. But for me, having a self-perspective allows me to establish relative values for making judgments of where to take my atoms next. Not because physics says I have to, but because I, myself, want to. :joke: — Gnomon
I agree that consciousness, I really hope we're tuned into the same channel here, plays a significant role in duality; after all it's a point of view, a way of looking at the world. However, I'm reluctant to say it's all up here, in the head. After all, empirical data of the world does yield a yin-yang pattern in reality. — TheMadFool
I've heard of non-duality (advaita vedanta for example) but haven't studied the arguments. Too, non-duality is said to be self-refuting since it stands in opposition to duality forming a pair. — TheMadFool
Indeed there's a consciousness that must exist to appreciate a duality, any duality but duality exists independently of a consciousness. What I mean is yes, an observer (the third e.g. me) is necessary to become aware of the hot sun and the cold snow but hot ans cold would exist even if I didn't exist and they would interact in the same way as any yin-yang pair would. — TheMadFool
Non-apples are as real as apples. There's no necessity to take the matter into higher dimensions and even if you did, yin-yang would figure in it (not so sure about that though). — TheMadFool
Au contraire, yin-yang is about opposites. Suppose it isn't about that and I'm under the grave misconception that it is. Edify me as to what it is. Thank you. — TheMadFool
1. My take on yin-yang is that they are opposites in a mathematical sense, like +y and -y. Bring them together like so: +y + -y and you get 0, nought. This cancelling of each member of a yin-yang pair is what balance/equilibrium is. This is both destructive (extremes are annihilated, +y and -y are gone ) and constructive (extremes are replaced by an in-between state, 0). Don't be fooled by 0, it doesn't mean nothing in this case. It only means, to use a warfare analogy, the two opposing sides are equally matched, a draw so to speak. — TheMadFool
2. Yin-yang pairs are an universal feature in nature, in the universe itself. Possibility mentioned apples, humans, ants, cheesecake etc. don't have opposites.
These objects are subjected to forces that are yin-yang in nature - humans are torn ( :chin: ) between good and bad, apples live and die, ants too, cheesecake are warm and then become cold. — TheMadFool
Too, humans vs non-humans, apples vs non-apples, ants vs non-ants, cheesecake vs non-cheesecakes - even a child ( :wink: ) can think of an appropriate opposite for these items, either as a class or singly. Pay attention to what these things are and what happens to them. — TheMadFool
Name a thing that doesn't have an anti-thing. — TheMadFool
Also, what's awareness got to do with dimensions? Can you provide a link that explains this connection between awareness and dimensions? Or is it just a theory you invented?, in which case I'm not interested. — TheMadFool
That third party would be subsumed by the duality it forms with the anti-third party. Every other party you invoke, if you so desire, will again neatly pair up with its opposite and will be absorbed into duet of yin-yang. — TheMadFool
Have it, flaunt it! Isn't that a rule of life?
I take it - beauty recognizing itself - as part of the Socratic principle of temet nosce. It's odd that people say things like, "you have the brains, use it" but never in my life (never say never) have I heard someone say, "you're beautiful, use it." Is this part of some mind game we're totally in the dark about? I dunno. Sounds interesting. It appears that, like some stroke patients, we're blind to, ignoring, an aspect (the physical plane) of our being. Amazing! — TheMadFool
People also say a person is beautiful inside and out when both apply but never say they are beautiful on the inside (in a public manner anyway) when only one applies. — TiredThinker
I have thought about the post which you wrote on the importance of attention and I believe that it is important but it is not just attention to the outer aspects of experience. In seeing the meaningful connections it is about the parallels within the outer world and the experience of thoughts. It may be that many people do not make links and some may not even remember their thoughts clearly enough.
I come from the perspective of noticing and remembering my thoughts. I had many experiences during adolescence, which were clear premonitions. I won't go into detail because some of them were extremely unpleasant as they were premonitions of people dying, and the individuals died shortly afterwards. At the time, I even started to worry that it was my fault that the people were dying. Fortunately, I discovered Jung's writings and it made a lot of sense.
I think that it is hard to know how far to go with Jung's theory, but it does seem to show that we can perceive patterns and it does seem to me to go beyond the physical world. I think that attention is important but it is a way of going beyond ordinary daily experience. — Jack Cummins
The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him
I'm not saying my talking about Will Smith affected the probability of him walking by. That's silly. I'm saying he could've walked by me at any time in a 24 hour period (1440 minutes) but that he appeared when I was talking about him (for 5 minute) is improbable. Do the math.
1440 - 5 = 1435
P(Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him) = 1435/1440
P(Will Smith walking by when I'm talking about him) = 5/1440 — TheMadFool
I don't require gratefulness for a compliment. My point is some people think their beauty is factual in all circumstances. And as far as complimenting someone on their personality that would be my first approach if I knew them well enough at that point. — TiredThinker
TiredThinker has deep trouble with women. We should be cautious... — Accounting
↪TiredThinker Who are you to impose – on what grounds should another accept – a standard against (your subjective appraisal of) "things that are empty and aren't accomplishments"? Beauty should not be celebrated for its own sake? Then why do you feel the need to acknowledge a woman's beauty? Okay, it's nothing special, and she replies "I know"; yet her acknowledgement of that very same beauty you remarked on is somehow less warranted than your acknowledgement. Why the double standard, Tired Thinker, if you're "not threatened"? — 180 Proof
While the likelihood of him walking past just as you’re talking about him is the same as any other moment
Explain yourself. I spend, maybe, 5 minutes talking about him and the rest of the day, 1435 minutes, not even thinking about him. — TheMadFool
So, I wonder about the role of our own consciousness in what becomes manifest in life. Intention affects our behaviour, but I do think that it may go beyond this and intentionality and thought may have more dramatic effects, involving layers of the subconscious. Perhaps, there are no coincidences at all. So, I am asking about explaining apparent coincidence, the nature of chance, randomness and causation. In particular, what is the role of consciousness, subconscious processes and intention in the manifestation of experience? I am interested to know what other people think about this. — Jack Cummins
2. You and your friend are in a deli. As you chow down on the burgers you ordered, you discuss Will Smith (the actor) and his movie I am legend. Just as one of you say "Will Smith", Will Smith walks by on the sidewalk outside the deli. Coincidence, meaningful. — TheMadFool
When a guy tells a woman she's beautiful and she either says that she knows or gives an unmoved expression that indicates that the sentiment isn't worth much is this just straight up hubris? I understand beauty can be measured to some degree scientifically, but is there ever any purpose to being so confident in a quality that in and of itself probably has no substance? I find it annoying when women seem to think so highly of themselves when in truth they don't look that great in my opinion. I find overconfidence keeps people from communicating and really getting to know one another. Is there a purpose for thinking so positively and absolutely about ones appearance? — TiredThinker
Don’t tell me I’m attractive or beautiful... tell me I’m a beautiful person and that you’re attracted to my sense of humour.
Don’t text me about how hot I am. Look into my eyes and tell me of my warmth.
Tell me I have a great mind that arouses your intellect.
Tell me one thing that I really am that you actually love...something that will last.
Because I need to know that you can feel the depths of my soul and are not just fascinated by the shallow reflection on the surface. — Kalsoom Akhter Kohli
Quantum physics recognises that this potential energy source is limited by our perspective, and that matter is no more than our anticipated interaction with potentiality, implying affirmation (less certain, more affected by limitations) of an unlimited source of possible energy.
I'm not sure here what it is that quantum physics "recognises. "Potential enetgy sources that are limited to our perspective"? What do you mean by this? QM or QFT both "recognise" potential energy derived from a classical view on energy. Particles can interact and this interaction determines kinetic and potential (the potential to become kinetic) energy. — Thunderballs
How does Witt provide a practical method for embodying inner and outer?? what is inner and what is outer? Time /energy in Heidegger? He doesn't talk like this. As to the embodied relationship, what do you mean by embodied? K is very aware that one has to think and reason to conceive anything at all, but he does not think like a post modern: in the discussion about actuality and reason, actuality is not conceived as a rational noumenon. Love is not rational, nor is suffering, hate, bliss, ecstacy and so on. Reason encounters these, reduces them to its terms, and this is K's objection, developed later by Levinas and others: We conceive of God out of our Totality of reduced world, and in his analysis it is faith that is the leap out of this totality, out of e.g., the principles of ethics, into something entirely irrational. — Constance
Meaning, value, actuality, etc is then attributed as we are embodied in the system.
But then: System? An inherently rational concept. Any system you can conceive is structured by the terms and thinking you already possess. The matter here is to take the affairs of philosophy to their threshold, and then not impose more thinking, more metaphysics, but to embrace the indeterminacy. This is liberating.
The only system that services this end is phenomenology and the Husserlian epoche. See his Ideas I. — Constance
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders — Tao Te Ching (Derek Lin translation)
I would need an example of the Tao to make this clear, that is, this correlation between energy and the Tao. Energy is a science term, connotatively packed, so I don't see how it works well here. Word choice matters a lot. This is why Heidegger had to construct his own, to be free of a long history of bad thinking. I don't think empirical science's "history" clarifies the Tao. — Constance
Also on Witt: Logic structures all thought (speaking of the Tractatus here), but it itself cannot be put in this structure to understand what logic is. One would need a third analytical perspective, which would need another to analyze it. There is no way "out" of this, for even the term"out" is nonsense in this context. From whence does logic "come"? What is its generative base? A terrific read along these lines is Eugene Fink's Sixth Meditation. Anyway, it is here philosophy reaches it end. I find the new post Heideggarian theories the right direction. The French I mention above. they don't systematize, but follow the simple logic of the basic principles of phenomenology to their logical conclusions. The result is an encounter with the impossible, which is where we really are. — Constance
You need to abide by what Kierkegaard says. His descritption is contra Hegel and he is not a rationalist, but insists this rationalality we witness in our affairs, far from being some adumbration of the God's full realization, is altogether other than God. K does not hold that all is foundationally rational and partially grasped by reason in our own zeitgeist. This zietgeist is quantitatively "sinfull" (not int he typical Lutheran sense at all; he flat out rejects this) — Constance
Inasmuch as for God all things are possible, it may be said that this is what God is: one for whom all things are possible … God is that all things are possible, and that all things are possible is the existence of God. — Kierkegaard, ‘Sickness Unto Death’
But there is analysis prior to this "inner/outer" opposition. Remember for Witt there is no "outer" talk is this talk is intended to be outside of logic. Like many phenomenologists, he has this prohibition against making sense out of a world that is not a fact, a "state of affairs". Such things are not in the great book of facts (LEcture on Ethics). Inner and outer are confined to language, whether it be language games or logical constraint. One cannot "talk" outside of a language game. — Constance
There is something IN the world that is primordial and profound. Heidegger thought this, but detested metaphysics. He did not see what I want him to see, that I am pushing here: Metaphysics is the radical other of the world, beyond its totalities (of course, Levinas at the bottom of this. See his Totality and Infinity, if you dare). — Constance
Open ended progress of time and energy? You use the term energy, but it makes what they say sound like something they didn't say. Heidegger doesn't talk like this. Of course, YOU can talk like this, obviously, and if you want to say that Heidegger really says this, you have to tell me explicitly: You know, Heidegger says this, but consider this using another term. Energy is a science term, and Heidegger would never go there. Regarding Time, his is a phenomenological ontology that deals with the structure of experience (another word he never uses). — Constance
Yep, the Scandinavian word "Lagom" — Ansiktsburk
You and I don't generally see these things the same way. It seems like you are using "qualitative idea" as your version of what I am calling "experience." I think that's misleading. As I said, to me, a concept, an idea, is a linguistic entity. — T Clark
As for what we can describe without language, isn’t this what art is for?
I think you and I are in general agreement, but the use of the word "describe" bothers me. Descriptions are generally done with language. Again, I think that will be misleading, perhaps not to you and me, but to others. — T Clark
To me, it's message is that there are experiences that are not reducible to language, not concepts. For me, concepts, ideas, are creatures of language. I think the distinction is important. — T Clark
But can't concepts be derived from experiences? — Noble Dust
Yes, this about assuming a singular primordial "something" is right on the mark. But this "broader understanding of energy and quality" raises the same objection: The place philosophers won't venture to go is the annihilation of theory. Derrida's is self annihilating (under erasure) and Wittgenstein's Tractatus talks at length about nonsense, as he confesses in that very work.
I take the matter beyond Derrida, I think, for he spent his days lecturing. He should have spent them liberating his own interiority from the constructions of language that occlude the Real, whatever that is. — Constance
I can't say I understand "six-dimensional qualitative awareness" or the "triadic relation of energy, quality and logic". I suppose I need to read Rovelli. — Constance
Science does not inform philosophy unless you are taking a course in the philosophy of science (which is specialized) and philosophy is not speculative science. This is a popular idea because science is very good at advancing technology. But ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson how it is that a brain can reach beyond itself to apprehend Jupiter or a light wave, and he will simply dismiss the question, or get the answer wrong, grounding it in question begging assumptions. Now analytic philosophy (which wants very much not to be wishy washy and get no respect) with its prioritizing of clarity over meaning does move along with science's emerging theories, but this simply delivers the impression that all is well at the base, while at the base there are glaring absurdities.
Continental philosophy brings light to the foundation of understanding, but, as wheels go, it deals in meaning, and meaning does not make a clear mark of its thought, because at the foundation, things lose their confidence and certainty.
Read the first several pages of Husserl's Ideas I to see where philosophy has its authentic grounding: it is aporia. — Constance
Metavalue and metaethics - the Good - refers to the possibility of an ideal relational structure (ie. logic) to this interweaving of energy and quality (in relation to an embodied rationality).
How so? — javra
The one philosophical thesis that comes to mind here is pragmatism: In the interior of experience, there is no rational faculty, no reason as such, no logical rules. We call them rules, but this is just a way of categorizing something holistic in its original presence. The entire experience is that out of which reason as a concept is abstracted, but the original whole is some unthinkable aesthetic/reason/sensible/intuitive actuality. And animals have this. — Constance
But it is not reason that is front and center; it is value. Metavalue and metaethics. That is, the Good. — Constance
Couldn’t agree with this more – be it from a modern or ancient pov regarding reason, or anything in between. But then, some further thoughts:
If there cannot be any reasoning that is not dependent upon metavalue, upon the Good, then can one find any alternative conclusion to that of the Good as metavalue in some way determining all reasoning? (for clarity, I take it we both understand the Good to not be a personhood) — javra
Threats are very basic, but promises, now that stretches witnessed behavior to a point beyond. What is a promise, essentially? One has to dismiss knowledge of the conditional form, the counter factual: promises are logically complex, for one has to be able to conceive of a broken promise, and here, there is the anticipated event that does not materialize, and there is disappointment. Clearly, anticipation is part of the promising construction, and there is no doubt dogs anticipate, just as mice and lizards do. But broken promises, or fulfilled ones, are not simply about anticipations, about my anticipating another's behavior. — Constance
But why this absolute rationality taking center stage? Rationalism and telos is always a bankrupt idea because reason has no value, that is, a rational perfection refers to form, structure of thought only and carries no weight beyond this. Just an empty vessel, reason. It is only when something in the world is in play that purpose and meaning are brought in. This is why I insist on a qualitative "leap" into a deeper understanding of the world that philosophy can uncover. My tentative claim is that language and its logic is only pragmatically meaningful: its mission, if you will, is to realize value, and this puts the burden of meaning on aesthetics. The Good, Wittgenstein said, is what he calls divinity. He is not talking about contingent goodness, but something profound he thinks is above language. Of course, he was right and wrong about this. — Constance
Kierkegaard, on the other hand, assumes a perfectly rational singularity (God), so your jump to ethics in his relation to Hegel makes sense. Everything evolves according to Hegel, so reason in his abstraction cannot realise this eternal rationality (pure reason) that Kierkegaard assumes. Nor can it, in Kierkegaard’s subjective philosophy, ever determine the ethical rationality (practical reason) that Hegel assumes.
You would have to tell me why you think K thinks like this. He doesn't hold those things. — Constance
I'm talking about the foundational place of language to the world. I have been arguing that beneath anything we say there is the impossible unutterable noumena which is not outside of experience at all. Phenomena are actually noumenal entities. But what makes something noumenal? It is not that it is beyond language, but rather, only beyond language in its, to speak Hegelese, Zeitgeist, which actually reflects Kierkegaard's concept of sin. Sin (but put aside the Christian thinking here) is essentially being possessed by culture, but the manner of conceiving of sin is important: It is an existential break from something primordial. Heidegger will later dismiss K's religiousness, but move forward with this "break" saying K is right, we in our normal assimilated ways of living according to "the they" which is the thoughts that circulate so freely and dominate throughout society in the form of given institutions and ideas, are out of touch with something deeply important. He thinks there is some nonalienated original condition. — Constance
Thus, pain is, prior to being taken up in science, in evolutionary theory, in talk about energy, or "moving away from logic toward action," I am saying, given to us as a conditioned term, blunted by language's tendency bring all things down to a familiar level (they they, or das man, as Heideggger puts it). Language makes us forget, reduces the world to familar terms. We don't think this is so because we are IN this zeitgeist, and it takes philosophy to see it. — Constance
One has to be careful with Kierkegaard, making him sound like a rationalist. It is not that he thinks God is logically assumed, but that God is conceived as an actuality that is intimated in childhood, and realized (bringing in sin by this) later as an incompleteness that is evidenced by the calling, the existential anxiety which is realized int eh fateful moment when a person reaches self awareness and affirms this incompleteness in her existence. It is an existential dialectic, not a logical one. — Constance
But the issue here has nothing to do with Rovelli or physics. Philosophy is not physics, nor is it abstract speculation. Think of eternity, for example, but withdraw from assumptions that are in place in the everydayness of affairs (of which science is an extension) and move into a more basic analysis, which is the structure of experience itself. The issue of time is fundamentally different, for time at this level is what is presupposed in talk about Einstein's time. Has nothing to do with physicists being wring and phenomenologists right; rather, these are modes of inquiry radically different from one anothe — Constance
Philosophy, I am claiming, is where thought goes when the world exceeds all paradigmatic categories. Heidegger wrote Being and Time just to go here, to the place where thinking meets its terminal point and explanations run out. But (and this is a crucial idea) instead of thinking like a scientist and dismiss what is not known as something always coming, waiting to but constructed conceptually, theoretically, which is an essential part of Heidegger, where Heidegger looks for some primordial language that has been occluded by centuries of bad metaphysics, I claim the reduction to something primordial and profound lies in Wittgenstein;s eternal present. Put Rovelli aside, pick up Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety.
Again, NOT at all that Rovelli (I read a synopsis) is in any way wrong, but the terms of analysis are very different. Time, its past, present and future, are here features of the experience that is already in place antecedent to what a physicist might say. (Einstein knew this. He read Kant when very young. He just knew he wasn't going to take on philosophical issues). — Constance
If we do not assume a priori that we know what the order of time is, if we do not, that is, presuppose that it is the linear and universal order that we are accustomed to, Anaximander’s exhortation remains valid: we understand the world by studying change, not by studying things....We understand the world in its becoming, not in its being. — Carlo Rovelli
What is this, that, and questions are not simply playful antagomisms, but are indicative of the indeterminacy of language (something Willard Quine famously wrote about; and he hated deconstruction...while agreeing!) Concepts are, all of them, open. So what happens, I ask here, when the broadest concept imaginable, Being, stands in openness? THIS is an extraordinary event, to allow the entire conceptual edifice to be "suspended". My claim is that if this is done faithfully, allowing openness its full due, then the world qualitatively changes, for there is no longer any conceptual recourse, no body language into which one can retreat, no "totality" that can subsume all things, for one has breached into eternity.
Energy? Why not shakti, or Brahman? Or thathata? Of course, these terms have different meanings, all of them, but note something important: When Hindus and Buddhists use vocabulary like this, they are understanding the world as it appears, mixed with thought and affect; cognition is not separated from these and objects in the world. How does one privilege ideas in a system like this? According to meaning, and affect is no longer a marginalized phenomenon. It takes center stage in ontology. And saying something like God is Love no longer is just a romantic foolishness. — Constance
You know, that is a very good point. So a well trained dog cannot, I think we can agree, produce an internal dialog. Sparky can't think, "Well, Jane is sleeping and I wish she would get up and put some food in the bowl. It was the same last week, I mean why own a dog if you're not going to......" There is no concept of time and space, no prepositional constructions, no conditional, negations that can be explicitly spoken internally. But: they do have familiarity that reaches conscious awareness; but then again, do they? When you say, "Let's go outside" does outside mean outside, or is it just a Pavlovian reaction? Of course, they feel good in this activity, bad in that one and they do make the connection between verbal noises and activities, they can anticipate. But is this knowledge?
Depends on what you mean by the term, of course. We say Sparky knows this and that, but we are being loose with this epistemic term. Safe to say, Sparky has no conceptual knowledge. But perhaps he has, and I suspect this si true, some kind of proto linguistic grasp of things. We have the conditional propositional form, and Sparky certainly follows events following other events. — Constance
religion is a philosophical matter, and the reason this idea sounds counterintuitive is that philosophy, in the minds of many or most, has no place in the dark places where language cannot go, but this is a Kantian/Wittgensteinian (Heidegger, too, of course; though he takes steps....) legacy that rules out impossible thinking, and it is here where philosophy has gone so very wrong: Philosophy is an empty vessel unless it takes on the the original encounter with the world, which is prior to language, and yet, IN language, for language is in the world. Philosophy's end, point, that is, is threshold enlightenment, not some foolish anal retentive need for positivism's clarity. — Constance
Words of truth and beauty, to be sure. We need the language, though, for without language, philosophy is bound within the individual experience. After having contemplated the boundary of understanding, and having discerned "the idea", one will inevitably find that language fails, that the lemmas simply do not exist for sharing with another. So, in the lack of adequate linguistic invention, we equivocate, and all is lost... — Michael Zwingli
The paradox you mention is between logic and the actuality. If you go by Hegel, then the real's rational nature is only imperfectly realized in our current Zeit Geist: it approaches perfection in God's self realization, and because we see only as our unevolved reason permits, contradictions rise up. But all this is awaiting so sort of divine completion in which contradictions fall away. So, all relations do have the stamp of paradox, for one can easily find contradictions everywhere since knowledge falls apart with inquiry at the basic level. This is what, by Hegel's standard, contingency is all about: the imperfection of realizing God's perfect rationality.
Hegel was essentially on your side because he agreed that reaosn in the abstract had no great value. Kant's pure reason is not very important here. What is important is the way reason grapples with what is given, making science what it is. Hegel doesn't separate things from reason: they are parts of the same grand disclosure of Truth in God.
I think Hegel is interesting. Continental philosophers take him seriously (though not as he would like); analytic philosophers don't talk about him except in philosophy history classes. You have to go through Kierkegaard: reason and objects are qualitatively completely different. To me this goes directly to ethics: That pain in your side where you were assaulted with a baseball bat: THIS is rational?? No. It has nothing to do with reason. — Constance
What do you mean by normal in this sense — Ross
I think it's more a question of political authorities using and abusing religion for their own ends rather than the fault of the Church itself. A classic case in my country is Northern Ireland during the conflict there in the 70,s and 80,s where people were murdered simply because they were a Catholic or Protestant. It had nothing to do with religion, the motives were political. — Ross
Do you mind me asking but What kind of church did you belong to because I'm from Ireland which when I was a child in the 60's was a very conservative Catholic country, but I don't remember my parents commanding me to obey them even though they were practicing Catholics. I was given full freedom to think for myself by them and my teachers. Of course 90% of people at that time attended mass. Religion was everywhere. But I think the Irish, although it was a conservative Catholic country, are by their nature quite a liberal minded, freedom loving , irreverent and progressive people's and just ignored the Church,s pronouncements or attempts to control our minds and hearts. I remember the wild parties full of casual sex and almost orgies, even back in the 70,s in so called Catholic Ireland. One Irish Professer on tv said "we Irish were straight-laced by day and hedonistic by night" — Ross
But to talk about possibility of impossibility points first to the "'words or logic" that constructs concepts like possibility and impossibility. Perfect relation? What is this if not a language construction? Absolute interconnectedness in the logos? What is this if not a logical interconnectedness? That is, the "saying" is always analytically first. — Constance
And this tapping into eternity, how does this cash out in analysis? Terms like finitude and infinity are fascinating to me, but it is not as if they are exhausted in the mere utterance, the incidental usage. for the question posed here goes to the structure of time itself. Time, I claim (and I am no more than what I read) is the structure of finitude, and finitude is subsumed by eternity, both, obviously, difficult terms and deserve discussion, but the final discussion to be had on this and any matter looks at the th phenomenological analysis of time. What is time? This is presupposed by talk about beginnings. — Constance
Don't know what you mean by infinite perfection. Not that I have no ideas about such a thing, but what you mean is not clear. At any rate, This intersection: is there just this (leaning Heideggarian) construction? Or is there not something, if you will, behind this in the reductive act of suspending all these possibilities? Once you step into that rarified world where language's grasp on the givenness of things is loosened, and meaning is free from interpretative restraint, is there not some undeniable qualitative change in the perceptual event as such? — Constance
What you say about identity is quite right, I think, and this then makes a turn toward agency, for identity is general, definitional, as in the identity of a term, a concept, but agency is all about the actuality of what it is (who it is). Most clearly an issue for ethics. — Constance
Correct. But "Father" can have more than one meaning, especially in theology. This had already been a form of address for the deity as applied, for example, to Zeus in the Greek tradition. As the father or “pater familias” was the ruler of the house, God was the ruler of the cosmos. Basically, the term implies authority and the respect and obedience due to that authority. — Apollodorus
As regards the attitude of Christian believers to God, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself gives his disciples two commandments, (1) to love God, and (2) to love your neighbor.
However, though Jesus expressly describes commandment (1) as the “first and great commandment”, there seems to be a modern tendency to treat this as an inconvenient (and to some, embarrassing) relic to be ignored together with the concept of soul.
I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that there is a general effort in modern theological discourse to dissociate Christianity from traditional core concepts such as God and soul, and to replace it with a humanitarian-political movement concerned exclusively with “feeding the poor”, “sheltering refugees”, and “smashing capitalism” .... — Apollodorus