The Deity is absolute being without distinction of place or manner (ALKG, ii. 439-440). No predicate derived from finite being is applicable to the Deity; but this is therefore not mere negation or emptiness. Rather is finite being, as such, negation; and the Deity, as the negation of finite being, is the negation of negation, i.e. the absolute fulness of being.
The same apparent contradiction is found, where Eckhart on the one hand calls God absolute being, and on the other denies that he is a being (319, 4; 659, 1); but he reconciles the two views (268-269). The same is the case with occasional seemingly paradoxical expressions, e.g. that God is not good, etc. (269, 18; 318, 35-319, 3). The essential elements of finite things are present in God, but in an exalted degree and in a manner that CAN NOT BE COMPREHENDED BY MAN.
(quoted from wikipedia… I capitalized the last sentence cause i thought it was important in making my point…
I’d like to hear the opinion of joetheman specially).
ok joe…it is hard for me to understand too…
we need to join forces to bring absolutes down hehe.
and i think your abstract thinking is powerful so…
ok…so i am a relativist because i think absolutes are tautologies relative to themselves and they are a circle like the ourboros…so a circular argument…
and because every consciousness can only know itself directly and can not tell what is ‘‘real’’ and what are it’s creations…
also i am a relativist because if there is an absolute, how can that absolute know that it is infact THE absolute and is not only led to believe it by something more powerful…
like for example…i drug someone and make them believe something…
i give morphine to someone in pain and they may think they are feeling pleasure…
so this absolute can have the doubt of having been ‘‘engineered’’ by something more powerful to be ‘‘blissful nirvana’’ and think it is the absolute…
just like we have sometimes the doubt of god…setting a stage for us…
ok so… but the thing about meister eckhart is that he says the absolute is ‘‘incomprehensible’’ basically…
so i’m like…ok, i am a relativist because my logic tells me things work that way… i doubt even my logic…
but then, the illogical comes… the maddness…
u know…?
the crazy whatever which may resemble an abyss, but may not…
it’s just insane and illogical… incomprehensible…
so therefore it is an absolute… because i am not able to put him in my shceme where nothing can be absolute.
it can be viewed as a language metaphore too…
like, this language is subjugated to this more powerful one…and infinitely so , till the UNlanguage… the MADNESS…which is the absolute…
The concept of God is used to create the only absolute.
That is the purpose the concept of God serves.
It serves as an end to our regression.
Without God, if we still believe there needs to be an absolute, our regression turns to Nihilism.
However, if we believe in some form of Perspectivism, we don’t believe there needs to be, nor ever were absolutes.
On another note… I just hate it when people say God can’t be comprehended! BOO!
I am interested too. It is an age old debate in which many find themselves in on ILP all the time.
How do the big wigs , professor’s of philosophy, and contemporary top minds weigh in on this debate? I would think they would mostly lean toward relativism yet would certainly shy away from this label.
No, I mean a guy, named Bob, who posts on ILP from time to time. He used to be the moderator of the Religion section, and as I recall, is a big fan of M. Eckhart.
This is great. OK, I’m much closer to understanding you, and I want to say: You’re on the right track.
I’m not trying to be coy, but I don’t want to tell you the answer (that is, what I think the answer is.) If even our language, the locus of our sense and reason, is constructed violently from nonsense, what could be absolute?
This would mean a paradox, right? Almost Kierkegaardian. This is a legitimate existential dilemma. That’s why I want to know what you think…!
hehe.
