I Posit

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I posit an interesting idea for a hopefully diverse exchange. Here goes:

Certainly our natural human condition is that we do not truly know from where we came and we do not know to where we are going after this temporary stint in our conscious world. We are therefore, at bottom, creatures of faith-- we must “fill in” the gaps, as it were, the metaphysical gaps of very existence. In this vein, I hope you’ll humor me as I propose for consideration a certain metaphysical vision, albeit theologically based, from our Judeo-Christian paradigm.

It is written in Genesis that when God created man, He said, “Let US make him in OUR image.” This suggests that God, although one, might be many. This lends credibility to the idea of the Trinity-- of a triune God, having one nature, but three distinct persons. One can take this image and extend it, therefore, to mankind-- as being one “human race,” with very many “persons” in our common community.

Regarding the life of the Trinity, it is also understood that God is united in Divine Love-- which is itself a person of the trinity-- the Spirit of Love, or the Holy Spirit. Could it therefore be that all of mankind, being in the image of God (in this sense of multi-persons in one nature), is likewise called to be united in the bond of a very special kind of Love? Could it be that Love transcends our personhood and calls us to an extraordinary unity; that Humanity is called to attain the perfection of one-entity-likeness, united in selflessness, personal sacrifice, and giving between its persons?

2

You should read Darwin, your eyes will be opened.

If you are religious, you might not like it, but if you do only what you like then why are you discussing anything?

Google-- Darwin Books

and happy reading, my friend!

3

I propose that even your “scientific” paradigm is ultimately built on a primary faith foundation, one which props up all of Darwin’s “scientific” presuppositions. How so?

Well, we return again to the “I think therefore I am” foundation-- the only foundation we definitely have, as we can be sure only of our consciousness and nothing more. To choose, therefore, one aspect of that consciousness–let’s say, the empirical “I see it therefore it is” paradigm, one definitely makes a conscious decision “to believe” thusly.

Similarly, the one choosing the Judeo-Christian paradigm, “chooses to believe” yet another aspect of his consciousness, let’s say, “I heard it as being divinely revealed and I consider it and it makes internal sense to me therefore it is.”

Surely, neither you nor such a person can claim to be on higher ground, considering our common condition of nascent ignorance regarding our origins and destination (from the perspective of independent consciousness). Do you get?

4

descartes’ cogito is a circle which proves nothing… that is no foundation for anything…

-Imp

5

I have a distaste for tying myself up with any philosopher, as I am of the breed who believes that one must rest on the merits of one’s own reason. Tell me, then, how, in your reason, do YOU refute our foundation in consciousness-- what is more primary?

I tend to believe that many so called “philosophically minded” people out there merely engage in a game of name spouting, which is, in my opinion, a sort of philosophical incompetence.

REASON FOR YOURSELF, MAN!

6

lol… haven’t you figured out that reason is unreasonable?

-Imp

7

Oh, I get it. With a name like Impenitent, you gotta not be phililosophically serious, for he who is impervious to moral persuasion is so by virtue of his chosen impishness.

How bout that Homer Simpson?

Ummmm, doughnuts!

Is this the unreasonable reasonableness of which you speak?

PS: I’m nor riled by the way-- I just prefer a more challenging debate.

8

“I think therefore I am” is in the same league as “I see it therefore it is”. I will now present you with two critiques of this reasoning.

Nietzsche argues that it should not be “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) but “cogito ergo est” (I think therefore there is [something]). First, let us note that the Latin cogitare means both “to think” and “to imagine”. Indeed, “to think” itself literally means “to cause to appear to oneself” (causative from of þyncan).

So Nietzsche denies both the subject (the “I am”) and the content of consciousness (your “it is”, the separate existence of the “it” “you” see). The only thing that Nietzsche is certain exists (he calls it “the fundamental certainty of Being”) is the imagining Being, which imagines (vorstellt, “puts forward”) both the contents of consciousness as well as its subject. Indeed, it has to imagine these things, as without them there could be no consciousness:

“There need be no subject and no object [or content] in order for imagination to be possible, but imagination must believe in both.”
[ibid.]

Furthermore he contends that it is “self-evident” that imagination is a process, that it changes (not moves: for, being all, it has nothing to move in).

Harry Neumann’s criticism is more succinct:

“What is clearer than the impossibility of experiencing anything but experiences! Nothing gives anything an extra-experiential being. A cave man grasping this knew all there is to know.”
[Neumann, Liberalism, page 35.]

9

Perhaps you’ll be surprised that I do not disagree whatsoever with your argument from Nietzsche or Neumann. I take it, first, that their points amount to one thing: that although we can be certain of our own existence on the evidence of consciousness, we cannot be certain whatsoever about the accuracy or true nature of any of the elements of our consciousness.

But this truth lays at the very root of my proposition that we are primarily creatures of faith. My whole point is: we can be just as uncertain about the true nature of what we " physically see" (as in empirical science) as much as what we “hear” (as in Judeo-Christian faith). How then is our “experience” of the Judeo-Christian paradigm any less sure than our “experience” of anything else? Both the Judeo-Christian and the “scientific” paradigm are equally unsure in our experience and are thus equally objects of faith.

We are left, therefore, to merely consider the myriad of experiences parading before us. I simply displayed one vision in my post, “I Posit.” It cannot be refuted, only considered. And if it does not meet your taste, then more power to ya! Just don’t get the impression that it is any less philosophically sound than the present day “blind faith” in the scientific.

10

Exactly - although calling it “our own” existence is misleading, as the subject - like all objects - of consciousness may be imaginary. (By the way, our body is, of course, one such object of consciousness.) As Harry Neumann says:

“Nihilism is not solipsism nor does it make man the measure of all things. The nihilist “self” or “man” which experiences its “world” is itself no more than empty impressions. It too is nothing.”
[ibid., page 27.]

And:

“Genuine science or liberal education liberates from the uplifting propaganda which makes anything appear other than empty impressions, dreams whose dreamers are themselves dreams.”
[ibid., page 45.]

I would, however, adjust this by saying that, as far as “I” know, there is only one such dreamer who is himself a dream (i.e., “I myself”). We might call this idea “solosomniism” (all there is is a dream).

But this presupposes that the Judaist or Christian actually hears a voice (which he then interprets as the voice of God). If he does, he (or the “paranormal” or schizophrenic man) may as well believe there is something or someone “behind” it as the scientist may believe there is an “objective” reality behind his experiences. Both are equally pseudo-scientific in Neumann’s view.

Yes. Indeed, Neumann’s nihilism lends a new legitimacy to the Judaist view of God:

“If it is true, as some say, that God created ex nihilo then God Himself belonged to the Nothing that was prior to Creation. That is to say, the highest reality is predicated of that Being – God – whose nothingness (uncreatedness) is of the essence of his perfection. Leo Strauss, it will be recalled, said that “I am that I am…” [eheieh asher eheieh] is better translated as “I shall be that I shall be…” This implied that God, as potentiality rather than actuality, is non-being rather than being, at least as non-being and being are understood by merely human intelligence. Moreover, to say that “nothing prevents anything from changing or being changed into anything else…” [as Neumann does] is to say nothing different than saying that nothing (viz., Nothing) limits the power of God.
Professor Neumann’s argument for the universal insignificance of everything also parallels the argument of the Bible, which treats everything beside God – viz., the Supreme Something because Supreme Nothing – as intrinsically insignificant, apart from its infusion with significance by God.”
[Harry Jaffa, ibid., page 68-69.]

Thus the God of the Hebrews may be equated with Nietzsche’s “imagining Being”, which “creates” a world by imagining it. It is what dreams the dream (the somnium) of solosomniism. I.e., it is what dreams the dreamer (“I”) as well as the contents of the latter’s (dream-)consciousness.

11

“Well, we return again to the “I think therefore I am” foundation-- the only foundation we definitely have, as we can be sure only of our consciousness and nothing more.”

"I have a distaste for tying myself up with any philosopher, as I am of the breed who believes that one must rest on the merits of one’s own reason. "

after stealing the cogito and claiming it as your base your distaste is apparent…

-Imp

12

Good stuff! A universal Love based on the unity of all things… that’s the type of religious ideal that makes sense. It’s a theme seen in eastern traditions as well, where the idea of “compassion for all” crops up a lot.

When you mentioned the Holy Spirit, that reminded me that the words ‘holy’ and ‘whole’ could be related. I googled that to confirm that is the case, and found this interesting page: http://www.carmenbutcher.com/wordpress/?p=57

13

Perhaps I ought to clarify some things:

(1) I never intend to personally attack anyone-- I just get a little lively sometimes.

(2) Attacking anyone isn’t quite in line with my original posit of universal love. I love you guys-- at least I try. (We realize, if we look deep into ourselves, that we really hate each other, but we’re just playing the game of the pretend-- until we truly attain love-- which IS possible, mind you).

(3) When I say I have a distaste for excessive references to philosophers, I don’t mean at all that I cannot appreciate the ideas of great philosophers-- not at all. I only mean that I dislike the tendency among many so called philosophically minded individuals to use a philosopher’s name in the place of a direct argument. I feel that direct arguments are more courageous and fruitful.

What do we gain in throwing names and references to ideas at each other, and not really using those ideas effectively?

14

A name means nothing, of course. What matters is the argument a person makes: thus I have presented arguments of Nietzsche, Neumann and Jaffa above. Their thinking makes their names, not vice versa.

15

Indeed the thinking makes the name, but I’m turned off from those who use the name to point to the thinking which may or may not apply to the argument at hand, one can never knnow, simply because pertinent application of the thinking is what is most needed in the situation and not merely a reference to it through the name.

Wheewww! Mouthful.

16

You say “we do not know” this and “we do not know” that and then you go on to say that this makes us “creatures of faith.”

No. I disagree with that. Nothing follows from “we do not know.” “We do not know” would make us creatures of ignorance. I “know” this because it’s a tautology and empty of meaning about the world. Accepting that we are, at heart, creatures of ignorance is harder for some of us than it is for others.

17

Why do I go from “we do not know” to our being “creatures of faith”? For this reason:

Despite our being “creatures of ignorance,” true, we yet have a world before us to deal with. In order to act, we must accept on faith that our actions have some significance, and are not just some uncertain “sound and fury signifying nothing.” Hence this faith necessary “to be” or “for existence” is the primordial faith of which I have all along been speaking.

18

Faith isn’t required to know that our actions have consequences. I think we can observe that and know it. We fall out of a very tall tree or off a mountain, we are badly injured or maybe even die. Neither of those are outcomes that most of us would freely choose if given a choice.

19

[quote=“Reality Check”]
Faith isn’t required to know that our actions have consequences. quote]

You’re missing the point again, Reality. I’m not referring to our realization that “actions have consequences” I’m referring to the necessary sensation that “actions have meaning.” Those are two different things.

The faith I speak of is that point where we connect our actions with significance, as leading to possibly good and meaningful things. If you have no sense of this, I’ll posit that you’re just being inhumanly obstinate simply because you hate the word “faith.” We simply cannot deny the fact that we are fundamentally creatures of faith. Faith is downright operational in our psyche-- without it we wouldn’t be what we are-- purposeful beings.

It seems like there’s a brand of atheism today associated with science (erroneously, by the way) which seeks to reduce the human experience to some meaningless mathematical accident. This is a sad and depressing type of existence to create for oneself-- heck, its downright pathetic. You might as well jump off a bridge for the sole purpose of experiencing a short, refreshing gust of air, if nothing has meaning. But then again, you might not even find the breeze enjoyable.

I don’t mean to be sarcastic but this is the vibe you give me, if you are really serious about your philosophy. Or are you just trying to “Reality Check” people for the shock value, not considering the absurd logical ramifications of your ideas?

20