Philosophy Now Forum

No, God is infinite and unable to be defined is what he thought.

Descartes = disassociation. Sorry to be heavy-handed with him, but he was typical of his age; the turn toward industrialization. His religious thoughts are perhaps... nostalgic? or reliant on an older generation, and hard to take seriously. But thanks for the clarification.

I don't see how a thing can be infinite, even God-thing. Infinity isn't even a thing itself! Anyway I don't don't see how infinite God is going to be disturbed by our investigations. I think Kant means we are going to disturb ourselves... but just how finite are we that we can be so sure we are separate from infinity, and unable to relate with it?... where is the beginning or end of ourselves - phenomenologically I mean?

The sun is a good example of what I would call infinite, The sun is luminous being relates only to sun and shines.

The seen is finite, and the unseen infinity. For example of animals is not one part body and the other mind? And to which class may be said the body is akin? And is mind seen or not seen? And by "seen" and "not seen" I mean which is or is not visible to the eye.
In sunlight is the act of sight, affirming maybe not identical but seeing something.Look at the sun how it moves higher and higher in daytime and when it reaches its highest point sinks to night, the greatest heat and the greatest cold depend on the height of the sun.

Everything is incited by the sun. The utmost perfect being is the sun,

It took Kepler twenty-seven years for to determine the law of motion using sun as his relativity; believed in the heavenly bodies reason is there arrived laws believed to be among the most beautiful, purest and least tangled with diversity laws to be found.
Socrates believed mind is immortal, that which is ever in motion is immortal must be indestructible. Therefore, can neither be destroyed nor begotten, or else the heaven and all creation would stand still. The eternal and unchangeable mind always loves knowledge of this sort, which shows not varying from generation and corruption.

Do you know this for a fact?

But no one is reading. You don't engage in dialogue. What do you get out of it?

The first a contradiction by chaz's words?

And then a disproof of the second by BB's reply. Although only an answer to the first I note. So maybe support for the second.

Socrates believed the harsh feeling which some entertain towards philosophy originate from the aspirant rushing in uninvited, and always abusing philosophy . They are pretenders who find fault with all philosophy, they would rather make their criticism the theme of conversation.

The solar system is perfect unity of a group of independent bodies nesting in an objective essential relationship to each other. This is universal gravitation where cohesion is the relativity of one and another dwelling together.

 In the fourteenth century, not only was Copernicus was learned in Greek astronomy but he also was a jurist and physician. He is the philosopher who showed the sun is mid point. Pythagorean spoke of this sun as the innermost point of the sphere as the midpoint or center. Aristotle too believed if the world which is spherical is equally in need of the light of the sun and sunlight heat, then it would be best for the sun to be at midpoint.

It was Copernicus who regarded sun at midpoint to take place with the sun at the center rather then with the sun moving around the center. A mobile for example does not differ from its center or moving planets.

Copernicus showed earth as a moving planets and sun immovable center of the universe.

We cannot comprehend infinite, for it is infinite . We cannot comprehend formally or eminently God, any idea which we have of God are in mind.

Everyone is ruled by divine wisdom dwelling mind within in order that people may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals.

What was taught me I borrowed all that is best in knowledge I listed everything, if not perfectly at least as well as is in my mind.

I had no intention of mastering knowledge I just thought it was a wise thing to do . Gradually I accustomed myself to conceive more accurately and distinct I could find no method more exciting nor
clear knowledge then philosophy.

What I was taught was already is in my mind as chance had arranged it required me to keep them up in my memory in order to embrace several at once I wrote them down.

Now I am well assured of their accuracy as of my own being. I studied the best examined and reexamined, sifted and compared great philosophers until an inward voice proclaimed me no possible doubt. We can put knowledge in mind if it is not there already. The power and capacity of learning exists in the mind always. Without mind everything which gives certainty vanishes. So many are persuaded there is difficulty raising above things of sense being so accustomed excepting images .

One maxim of Paramenides that absolute cannot exist, for then absolute would be no longer absolute and that being is determined by relationship; beginning and end are the limits of everything.

In that case of eternity having neither beginning nor end, is unlimited. Therefore, nothing can partake either of round or of straight. Round is that of which all the extreme points are equal distance from the center.

Paramenides believed since the utmost limit of being is perfect on every side resembles the form of a well rounded sphere, which from its center extends in all directions equally, this is perfection for it can be neither bigger or less significant in one part or another.

Though perfect round doesn't have any existence except as a theoretical idea. No-one has ever seen or been able to create a perfect circle, nor will ever. There are endless refinements that can be applied to any form, and that just simply doesn't allow absolute perfection of form.

The most important part of anything is the beginning and end. Limits of anything have a beginning and end. In the case of eternity has neither beginning nor end, does not partake of form. Why because shape is that of which all extreme points have equal distance from the center of extreme, eternity is neither there cannot be another in itself.

Essence the ideal rule pervades the whole inner and outer of the crystal nucleus molecule integrants attach themselves to the surface of the nucleus in a kind of successive array.

Hauy a French mineralogist expounded the law of crystallization. The immaterial becomes material by crystallizing the inner continuity through and through. This silent activity sets forth without action, shapes and links together all the different parts, as the sun does.

When inner self comes forward with imperturbable truth is crystallization.

Crystallization is a reflection-into-self, a likeness to sun. The Hindus believed the ego if maintained in pureness reflection into self would pass into sunlight transparency. But the ego is self-consciousness only an empty uncertainty of self merely an attitude or reflection.

Sun is only present does not fill space it is not something. Merely possibilities of unifying with all things in community and no objects are in the way. Sun transparency can be explained using a crystal.

I beg your pardon.

LOL

Syntax



A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements of facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.


**************************

The Other Syntax

Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound like they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
That's the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going now, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.

- Carlos Castaneda