Absurd notions and objects can be quite ordinary, but they may appear absurd simply by being employed in strange ways. This might seem to make absurdity a relative distinction. Here are three examples that show the relativity of absurdity:
Music and red are ordinary ideas. If we claim that “music really is red” then, as we privilege neither music nor red above the other, both are absurd if “music really is red”.
A square and a circle are ordinary ideas. But if we make a claim for “a square circle” then, as we privilege neither the square nor the circle, both are absurd if there is a “square circle”.
An experience of God and a Halloween costume are ordinary ideas. But if we claim that “God really is a Halloween costume” then, as we privilege neither one above the other, both are absurd if “God really is a Halloween costume” (atheists take note).
My conclusion? We can’t claim or show that something is absurd simply by representing it by something that it is not. If we do so misrepresent it then people will think that it isn’t the objects that are absurd, but the person making the misrepresentation or claim.
Good one yes, can we claim something is absurd without representation E.g. the eternal banana is creator of heaven and earth? Maybe I need a better example.
God likes to have his name pronounced ba-nay-nay, you know, to distinguish himself from yellow fruit. Guy gods are like that you know, they don’t want to be thought of as yellow or fruity.
God’s existence would not comfort me, it would TERRIFY me. To know that you were created to be essentially someone’s play toy - now if there could be hell, that would surely be it.
That is if ‘god’ is a creator, or a creator of ‘you’, if he is a creator then he would have created the universe not you surely.
For example;
I went to a chippy the other day and the Portuguese chap [I couldn’t understand what he was saying] said; ‘I have only the language god gave me’.
Well if god gave us language we would surely all speak the same one. Secondly his parents/school/culture gave him language, and they got it from their ancestors, so on and so forth, god never gave him language. Now try to imagine anything at all in the world where something similar is not also true about what god gives us!
In other words there are always causal chains right back to the beginning therefore I think we can safely say that god did not create us specifically.
Secondly there are no examples of gods effectuality, so after the creation he does not interfere, thus we are not his toys.
Pantheism may be representative of a deeper nature, I think one should look beyond the idols though. My all ‘p’s are p formula is a bit anti Spinoza but I can see what he means, its just that perhaps he considered god in terms of the absolute and not the universal.
I mean we could go one step beyond all that; first we denounce the god concerned with fate and who interferes with everyday things like language [as per my example], but can we not also denounce the god ‘in the orderly harmony of what exists’, for these things are causal too.
However we are still left with principles and the philosophical universe [y‘know the one which wont let us know it exactly so things are always left open to interpretation], so in that god can simple create those principles knowing that the universe will happen in a given way, and that you will get stars and planets then eventually intelligent life etc.
I am inclined though to go all the way and consider those principles to exist irrespective of anything else whatsoever. Why they do is a great mystery and it only leaves us with god as Noumenal ~ which is way more fun than something tangible.
An infinite being may have an entirely different way of knowing to us, and more, the wisdom to not make us into puppets by interfering. Not to mention that if ‘he’/it is creator then we are presuming an imperfect creation from the perfect, just because that creation doesn’t suit us. There just may be a far bigger picture etc.
This is a common misconception about Spinoza’s beliefs. He was quickly labeled a “Pantheist”, which implicates a belief that the material Universe and ‘God’ are identical.
He believed that God was ultimately transcendent (not material), but also immanent. That is to say, ‘God’ the “indwelling” of all things (universal), though indivisible and of infinite attributes (absolute).
Of course. But let me point out that Spinoza does not posit ‘God’ as being responsible for that ‘harmony’, per se, but as being that harmony. ‘God’ is the ‘flux’ we perceive, and the subsequent causal chains – the necessary nature of Nature.
If God is the “indwelling” of all things, ‘all’ is essentially united as a subset of ‘God.’ That is, everything is attributable to God. All of what we ‘know’ and perceive is obtained by those attributes which we were necessarily provided by Nature (the ‘course of nature’ being “God”).
If ‘God’ does exist, I would agree that any speculation regarding God’s nature is inherently limited by our conceptual schemes, language, and modes of perception.
Indeed, that’s a bit like judging a person by what they do, I build and drive my car but that doesn’t make me a car, etc.
I don’t see the infinite wall between the indwelling/absolute and the material [hence p = p], but that ‘wall’ occurs only if we place them directly next to one another ~ I would go; ‘space > collective > point’ or infinite, universal and particular [break up ‘p’]. If god is the infinite his expression would be universal and the effect particular, thus god remains transcendent [infinite]. In other words its more of a filter than a wall, but I think there is still a problem with the oneness of it all as we are considering tow things which by themselves are incomparable ~ the infinite and the particular [finite - let us say]. When we put all the things in one box they don’t make sense, I feel this pertains to the whole reason as to why existence exists, these elements have to be distinct from one another. Perhaps god is the oneness where Satan is the two-ness ~ an irresolvable difference.
I see, kinda like guiding hands or the path the river must take. If e.g. gods expression is universal then the practice will follow, we read causality by the practice and conclude that everything is within that, however causality cannot deny the presence of universals and there massive influence upon things.
God probably doesn’t work on the individual level much if at all, I have often felt my path and visions as if like a tape recording ~ kinda like anyone can see the same stuff.
Best perhaps to describe the universe without god and let that act as a shadow puppet.
I am still unsure about god existing more than in the divine infinite [which is not a god], the idea asks so many questions namely; why does reality have god? Maybe it just has to, an infinite soup is a god like entity having all that we are.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I think our beliefs are quite similar here, though I’m still not sure I totally comprehend your P = P model.
I find your reasoning interesting too, specifically–
What I find interesting about this is that your formula is from an omniscient perspective, whereas a human perspective inverts that formula.
That is to say, from an omniscient (God-like) perspective, we would see totality (infinite) foremost → then applicability (universals) → then effects (particulars).
From a human, epistemological, perspective, I’d think we went from recognition of predictable effects (particulars) → to recognition of shared applicability (universals) → to speculation of totality, singularity, noumena, etc. (infinite).
Well said.
They are comparable if you consider the infinite as consisting of all possible particulars. Like Spinoza, I think we are essentially subsets of ‘God’ (the infinite, consisting of infinite attributes) insofar as we operate based on a finite number of attributes. Those attributes define our respective ‘modes’ of perception as well.
what if he is the yellow fruit? Then it is absurd without reference?