surreptitious75 wrote:
The only way that God is real is if that is another word for Universe as per pantheism
Did you mean that we believe that it is not beyond thought? I ask, give the but, which seems contradicted by what follows it. Or could that first sentence have used 'and' instead`?Guide wrote:When the tree falls in the woods, the sound is beyond thought, but we believe it is.
However, this is only because we already know of sound. Ergo, to deny is to know what one denies. When we deny the fanciful, we deny imagination, not a thing known as is the sound of what falls.
Ergo, what is "outside" thought is always first in it.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)
- Outside of "thought" -
is itself within thought.
“There is no escape from thoughts.”
“This "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it?" was supposedly linked to Berkeley whose main interest was to denounce materialism and to prove and insist God exists.”
“Theists like Berkeley claimed, God is the only absolute that exists independently "outside of thoughts"”
“But re Wittgenstein, since God is outside thoughts, then one cannot speak of it, thereof one must be silent, i.e. literally shut up on any claims of God.”
“Despite that theists must shut up with the idea of God, they continue to insist falsely God is real to the extent of delivering holy texts to chosen messengers, [in some cases] with commands for believers to kill non-believers.”
"The only way that God is real is if that is another word for Universe as per pantheism"
Guide wrote:"The only way that God is real is if that is another word for Universe as per pantheism"
As a preliminary indication I would start from this statement: God means Rationality. Rationality means there is obviousness or clear and distinct understanding which one can reason from as a basis. This basis is called knowing, but if it is doubted we call it thinking.
There is the usual contradiction, there.
Any claims of what is unthinkable, or outside of thought, are equally prevy to something one must speak about, therefore, both the claim for the existence of God, and the claim for asserting that which is unthinkable are absolutely identical.
So the ground of the later can not be that which is identical to it, since God is defined as that which is unthinkable.
Here is the failure of Wittgenstein's positive claim, it reduces to a baseless absolute rhetoric re: god, and how it is conceived, vis, that which is unthinkable.
To note: to deny the unthinkable, is to assert the absolute thinkable, which makes little sense, since here, 'thinking' and 'knowing' are equovocate as well. ; Or used similarly: to form a resemblance.
The derivitive for that, is that the inside is hypothetically divided into both the knowable and the thinkable, whereas the outside is merely indefinable.
Therefore outside of thought is outside of knowledge, therefore it should be not spoken about.
However it is not undefinable, since it has been very well defined, characteristically, therefore it can be both: thought, known, hence spoken about.
It is here, that Russel is disappointed in Wittgenstein's mantra, it can not get rid of the very definable idea, despite its non appearing as sensibility, via data, ( sense data) . But what of miracles, or hallucinations?
Hallucinations, on psychological basis, can not verify absolute rationality or the lack of them , merely appealing. to claims in terms of searching for the absolute.
Russell's claims of not being a Christian falls on deaf ears, for that reason.
Perhaps he was older and wiser later on to release his youthful enthusiasm for naive realism and common sense philosophy of the early youthful Wittgenstein, was premature, and that is his reason for rejecting the later Wittgenstein.
"There is the usual contradiction, there.
Any claims of what is unthinkable, or outside of thought, are equally prevy to something one must speak about, therefore, both the claim for the existence of God, and the claim for asserting that which is unthinkable are absolutely identical."
So the ground of the later can not be that which is identical to it, since God is defined as that which is unthinkable.
Here is the failure of Wittgenstein's positive claim, it reduces to a baseless absolute rhetoric re: god, and how it is conceived, vis, that which is unthinkable.
To note: to deny the unthinkable, is to assert the absolute thinkable, which makes little sense, since here, 'thinking' and 'knowing' are equovocate as well. ; Or used similarly: to form a resemblance.
The derivitive for that, is that the inside is hypothetically divided into both the knowable and the thinkable, whereas the outside is merely indefinable.
Therefore outside of thought is outside of knowledge, therefore it should be not spoken about.
However it is not undefinable, since it has been very well defined, characteristically, therefore it can be both: thought, known, hence spoken about.
"It is here, that Russel is disappointed in Wittgenstein's mantra, it can not get rid of the very definable idea, despite its non appearing as sensibility, via data, ( sense data) . But what of miracles, or hallucinations?
Hallucinations, on psychological basis, can not verify absolute rationality or the lack of them , merely appealing. to claims in terms of searching for the absolute.
Russell's claims of not being a Christian falls on deaf ears, for that reason.
Perhaps he was older and wiser later on to release his youthful enthusiasm for naive realism and common sense philosophy of the early youthful Wittgenstein, was premature, and that is his reason for rejecting the later Wittgenstein."
Guide wrote:
When the tree falls in the woods, the sound is beyond thought, but we believe it is.
Did you mean that we believe that it is not beyond thought? I ask, give the but, which seems contradicted by what follows it. Or could that first sentence have used 'and' instead`?
However, this is only because we already know of sound. Ergo, to deny is to know what one denies. When we deny the fanciful, we deny imagination, not a thing known as is the sound of what falls.
Ergo, what is "outside" thought is always first in it.
IOW we are first immersed in the illusion then out of it? Or something else.
Did you mean that we believe that it is not beyond thought? I ask, give the but, which seems contradicted by what follows it. Or could that first sentence have used 'and' instead`?
IOW we are first immersed in the illusion then out of it? Or something else.
"What if the tree falling in the forest lands right on top of you? There you are pinned underneath it...succumbing to a slow and painful death. What of being inside or outside of thoughts then?"
"The only way that God is real is if that is another word for Universe as per pantheism"
As a preliminary indication I would start from this statement: God means Rationality. Rationality means there is obviousness or clear and distinct understanding which one can reason from as a basis. This basis is called knowing, but if it is doubted we call it thinking.
Compared to God, as theists should think if they actually believe in such a being, everyone on earth is infinitely puny, so it is arrogance for a being to think it's god who asks US to kill, obviously, knowing they are FOREVER defined an infinitely puny, they should not leave the killing to anyone but god.
It is arrogance to believe that god is working through the forever infinitely puny. If someone is muderdered it should be god and only god, not a proxy, and not a possession.
Do you really want to know why people are atheists?
Because they are empathic, rather than psychopathic. They are empathic rather than narcissistic.
And most importantly, every being to the depths of their being knows that a single consent violation against their consent is one to many.
This has happened to billions of beings.
People always say that the most important attributes of god are omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
This is a lie. EVERY being in all of existence only cares about the one attribute no religion has gaven to god (because it's true and falsifiable instantly) - omnibenevolence.
You know why religions don't teach that god is omnibenevolent?
Because nobody would believe in god.
They'd check whether their consent is being violated, right then and right now, find out that it is, and disprove god in a fraction of a second.
God is the supreme consent violator.
God is great, god is good, let HIM! (Really?) violate our consent forever.
Now let's say hypothetically that god is all knowing. That makes god the only being in existence who has ZERO faith!!!!
Jesus asks us to be perfect like the father is perfect, meaning people of no faith -- blam!! Irreconcilable contradiction, negating gods existence. MagsJ is censoring me so I can't give the whole proof.
"Compared to God, as theists should think if they actually believe in such a being, everyone on earth is infinitely puny, so it is arrogance for a being to think it's god who asks US to kill, obviously, knowing they are FOREVER defined an infinitely puny, they should not leave the killing to anyone but god."
It is arrogance to believe that god is working through the forever infinitely puny. If someone is muderdered it should be god and only god, not a proxy, and not a possession.
"Do you really want to know why people are atheists?"
"Because they are empathic, rather than psychopathic. They are empathic rather than narcissistic."
People always say that the most important attributes of god are omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
This is a lie. EVERY being in all of existence only cares about the one attribute no religion has gaven to god (because it's true and falsifiable instantly) - omnibenevolence.
God is great, god is good, let HIM! (Really?) violate our consent forever.
Now let's say hypothetically that god is all knowing. That makes god the only being in existence who has ZERO faith!!!!
"Jesus asks us to be perfect like the father is perfect, meaning people of no faith -- blam!! Irreconcilable contradiction, negating gods existence. MagsJ is censoring me so I can't give the whole proof."
Guide wrote:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)
- Outside of "thought" -
is itself within thought.
Thank you for coinciding with, and thereby upholding, the spirit of philosophy, in some way, rather than with the mere weapons of verbal battery.
The analogy between the sound of the tree falling when we aren't there, and what is but is not thought, is thought. Whether or not it thinks anything is not thereby decided. If it does, then what it seems to want to think, is. However, perhaps it can not think what it seems to want to.
Wittgenstein says, if I do not know exactly what I think, do I thereby think nothing? Perhaps the analogy, above, is not thought entirely. Heidegger says, what is most thoughtworthy concerning thought is that we are not yet thinking.
But God's thinking, thoughts and existence is supposedly independent of human thoughts.“Theists like Berkeley claimed, God is the only absolute that exists independently "outside of thoughts"”
Rather, he said, God always thinks the things even when no one else does. The world is the mind of God. “The horse is in the stable”, ergo, he upheld common sense.
As explained above, Wittgenstein's position is not Solipsism.“But re Wittgenstein, since God is outside thoughts, then one cannot speak of it, thereof one must be silent, i.e. literally shut up on any claims of God.”
Thusly, Wittgenstein says, Solipsism is the correct position. This means, not deity fullness of being or absolute as fullness, and not common sense or the in between shadow and sun. In this, he is more radical than Husserl in his phenomenology. Taken in the strongest interpretation, he outstrippes all phenomonologies (this strong sense is, however, not obviously justified considering Wittgenstein’s general output and the sounds he was absorbed by throughout his life.)
“Despite that theists must shut up with the idea of God, they continue to insist falsely God is real to the extent of delivering holy texts to chosen messengers, [in some cases] with commands for believers to kill non-believers.”
Or, you will kill them? Of course, first one would say, only make them harmless, and then, if they can not be made harmless, kill them for the sake of peace and reason. However, you invite this rebuke which is boring to deliver, since you should have already considered it, had you paid tribute to reason rather than your baby god or ego arbiter’s idealistic and narrow minded whims. In Leo Strauss, we see the right way to approach this difficulty: one must see that there is more than one kind of rationality.
Prismatic567 wrote:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)
"Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it?"
Theists like Berkeley claimed, God is the only absolute that exists independently "outside of thoughts"
But re Wittgenstein, since God is outside thoughts, then one cannot speak of it, thereof one must be silent, i.e. literally shut up on any claims of God.
Despite that theists must shut up with the idea of God, they continue to insist falsely God is real to the extent of delivering holy texts to chosen messengers, [in some cases] with commands for believers to kill non-believers.
Prismatic567 wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:
The only way that God is real is if that is another word for Universe as per pantheism
Why not confine the term 'Universe' as in Science which is very objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
This is empirical and no psychological elements are involved.
However there are psychological elements involved in the Pantheism = Universe = God relationship.
Ecmandu wrote:Do you really want to know why people are atheists?
Because they are empathic, rather than psychopathic. They are empathic rather than narcissistic.
MagsJ is censoring me so I can't give the whole proof.
Serendipper wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:surreptitious75 wrote:
The only way that God is real is if that is another word for Universe as per pantheism
Why not confine the term 'Universe' as in Science which is very objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
This is empirical and no psychological elements are involved.
However there are psychological elements involved in the Pantheism = Universe = God relationship.
If you do that, then you're left explaining how something came from nothing: how psychology came from a bunch of dead junk.
It's easier (via occams razor) to assume everything is conscious to varying degrees.
Consciousness isn't a complicated form of mineral, but mineral is a simple form of consciousness.
Pantheism is the easiest way out.
Prismatic567 wrote:How something came from nothing?
In the above statement your are assuming 'something' pre-existed without any proof that it exists.
If something-A came from something-B, then from what did something-B came from?
If you can present a source for something-B, i.e. something-C, then from what did something-C came from? and on it goes ..
In that case you are caught with the problem of infinite regression - which is a useless answer.
Pantheism is not the easiest way out because it is still subjected to infinite regression and existential psychological impulses in a way?
The more practical is that of Buddhism, i.e. focus on the 'NOW' and act positively towards the well being of oneself and others.
Buddhist philosophy do take into account the past and the future as secondary but the primary focus is on the 'NOW.'
Serendipper wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:How something came from nothing?
In the above statement your are assuming 'something' pre-existed without any proof that it exists.
If something-A came from something-B, then from what did something-B came from?
If you can present a source for something-B, i.e. something-C, then from what did something-C came from? and on it goes ..
In that case you are caught with the problem of infinite regression - which is a useless answer.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The proposition is how consciousness came from unconsciousness (ie something from nothing).
Pantheism is not the easiest way out because it is still subjected to infinite regression and existential psychological impulses in a way?
It's the only way to explain the origin of life without requiring magic.
The more practical is that of Buddhism, i.e. focus on the 'NOW' and act positively towards the well being of oneself and others.
Buddhist philosophy do take into account the past and the future as secondary but the primary focus is on the 'NOW.'
Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.
Guide wrote:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)
- Outside of "thought" -
is itself within thought.
Thank you for coinciding with, and thereby upholding, the spirit of philosophy, in some way, rather than with the mere weapons of verbal battery.
The analogy between the sound of the tree falling when we aren't there, and what is but is not thought, is thought. Whether or not it thinks anything is not thereby decided. If it does, then what it seems to want to think, is. However, perhaps it can not think what it seems to want to.
Wittgenstein says, if I do not know exactly what I think, do I thereby think nothing? Perhaps the analogy, above, is not thought entirely. Heidegger says, what is most thoughtworthy concerning thought is that we are not yet thinking.
There are many perspectives to reality.
There is the vulgar common sense, the conventional sense, the social, the theoretical, the practical, the Scientific, the philosophical, etc., and ultimately the Question of Being [Heidegger].
The Wittgenstein's quote is related to the ultimate question in philosophy, i.e. the Question of Being and thus not relevant for the common vulgar or conventional sense. In the common sense perspective humans need to think and do whatever it takes to survive regardless of the knowledge of their thoughts and thinking.
“Theists like Berkeley claimed, God is the only absolute that exists independently "outside of thoughts"”Rather, he said, God always thinks the things even when no one else does. The world is the mind of God. “The horse is in the stable”, ergo, he upheld common sense.
But God's thinking, thoughts and existence is supposedly independent of human thoughts.
God and reality are equated. Something independent from the human. But, in Berkeley, as in the whole tradition, the basic assumption is that reality is human friendly, as it were.
“But re Wittgenstein, since God is outside thoughts, then one cannot speak of it, thereof one must be silent, i.e. literally shut up on any claims of God.”
Thusly, Wittgenstein says, Solipsism is the correct position. This means, not deity fullness of being or absolute as fullness, and not common sense or the in between shadow and sun. In this, he is more radical than Husserl in his phenomenology. Taken in the strongest interpretation, he outstrippes all phenomonologies (this strong sense is, however, not obviously justified considering Wittgenstein’s general output and the sounds he was absorbed by throughout his life.)
As explained above, Wittgenstein's position is not Solipsism.
Wittgenstein's quote above is related to metaphysics and ontology, i.e. one should never reify something out of nothing i.e. literally shut up the mind, with the idea of an independent ultimate entity.
Note Wittgenstein's counter to Moore's 'there is an independent hand' in 'On Certainty', thus no independent reality to be spoken thereof.
As I had explained elsewhere, the impulse to reify something out of nothing is due to one's desperate existential psychology.
“Despite that theists must shut up with the idea of God, they continue to insist falsely God is real to the extent of delivering holy texts to chosen messengers, [in some cases] with commands for believers to kill non-believers.”
Or, you will kill them? Of course, first one would say, only make them harmless, and then, if they can not be made harmless, kill them for the sake of peace and reason. However, you invite this rebuke which is boring to deliver, since you should have already considered it, had you paid tribute to reason rather than your baby god or ego arbiter’s idealistic and narrow minded whims. In Leo Strauss, we see the right way to approach this difficulty: one must see that there is more than one kind of rationality.
I thought you prefer and agreed with no verbal attacks?
Btw, I have reservations re your thinking but will shut up on it.
My foundation of morality is that of the Kantian Framework and System.
One of the absolute maxim of the Kantian morality is 'Thou Shall Not Kill' period, no ifs and no buts.
Thus there will be no killing [in general] of the extremist religious killers but rather there are loads of preventive methods we can carry out to deal with the evil ideology and rewire the brains of the extremists toward good and striving to be near the ideal in the future.
Note I raised this thread;
Do NOT Bash Muslims
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=191104&p=2627469&hilit=do+not+bash+muslims#p2627469
My point;
The foundation of reality-as-it-is is imperatively complimented with thoughts.
I thought you prefer and agreed with no verbal attacks?
Btw, I have reservations re your thinking but will shut up on it.
"My foundation of morality is that of the Kantian Framework and System.
One of the absolute maxim of the Kantian morality is 'Thou Shall Not Kill' period, no ifs and no buts."
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]