Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:12 am

Reflex wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:02 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:26 pm
You forgot the "nyah nyah nyah". Detail is important.

Unlike you, I happily admit that I do not know the ultimate nature of reality. I make no claims for serendipity or anything else - because I don't know, and neither do you.

However, you need the psychological support of belief. It's a healthier crutch than cigarettes or heroin.

You’re being intellectually dishonest, Greta. We all have beliefs about how the universe works. Even you. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be able to formulate the first rational thought.

It's easy but unethical to throw around terms like "intellectually dishonest" when the truth is that you simply don't agree with me.

I provisionally believe in facts that have been acquired by the sacrifice and effort of brilliant minds down through history, that have been rigorously tested and retested and ultimately found to be reliable observations at this stage. I'd throw any of those ideas out in a heartbeat, though, if better evidence was clearly provided.

So, while I think the universe is an entirely living edifice, I don't believe it. I can't believe it because it's only an idea, not even a working hypothesis let alone a theory. It's just an idea that I like a lot and think might have legs in the future, but I would never argue it from a standpoint of certainty.

You always do what you say you would never do. Your faith in serendipity is absolute.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:16 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:56 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:05 amExcellent - finally some proper feedback, even if grumpily delivered.

Ah, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is a “grump.” - Noted.

You were the one to use the frownie emoticon.

seeds wrote:...how, pray tell, is the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “chance” as being the guiding force in the manifestation of the universe any different than the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “nothing,” for example, being its guiding force?

This is not how people think. Anyone who believes that chance is all there is will not say they believe in God.

Let's test this as above.

"I believe in God."

"Which one?"

"My god is Serendipity."

It simply doesn't work. The people who believed in nothingness as basically being God would claim that nothingness is entirely unlimited in its creative potential, with "nothing" to stop it from doing anything. They believe that we came from nothingness and to nothingness we shall return.

A lot of the analogies certainly do fit, but it seems most likely to me that nothingness is only a relative and theoretical construct. Usually the Nothing believers will then shift discussion to subjective nothingness, as in a coma or whatever.

From there, there will be discussion of how there was nothing, then we become conscious and then there is nothing again. Even so, who is to say that what highly complex hominids perceive as nothing, actually is nothing?

Nah, I get it.

I wasn't playin' the game right.

Me, personally, I'm already covered...

Anthropomorphic Prime Mover: Crom

...sorry I poked my nose in without readin' the back of the cereal box.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:34 am Excellent - finally some proper feedback, even if grumpily delivered.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:16 am Ah, I see, anyone who disagrees with you is a “grump.” - Noted.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:34 am You were the one to use the frownie emoticon.

Sorry, I thought it was the “confused” emoticon, when actually it is the “neutral” emoticon (so we’re both just a couple of dummies).

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:16 am ...how, pray tell, is the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “chance” as being the guiding force in the manifestation of the universe any different than the belief in the abstract and impersonal powers of “nothing,” for example, being its guiding force?

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:34 am This is not how people think. Anyone who believes that chance is all there is will not say they believe in God.

Let's test this as above.

"I believe in God."

"Which one?"

"My god is Serendipity."

It simply doesn't work.

And yet “My God is Nothingness” does work?

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:34 am The people who believed in nothingness as basically being God would claim that nothingness is entirely unlimited in its creative potential,...

How can absolute “nothingness” (in the purest sense of the word) be in possession of the “somethingness” implicit in the idea of “creative potential”?

Ergo, the belief is total nonsense.
_______

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:40 am Nah, I get it.

I wasn't playin' the game right.

Me, personally, I'm already covered...

Anthropomorphic Prime Mover: Crom

...sorry I poked my nose in without readin' the back of the cereal box.

Crom? Not familiar.

I would think anything anthropomorphic would fit into #1, whether just a prime mover or interventionist. Otherwise we'll end up with shitloads of humanised deities.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:25 amHow can absolute “nothingness” (in the purest sense of the word) be in possession of the “somethingness” implicit in the idea of “creative potential”?

Ergo, the belief is total nonsense.

I'm just reporting. I'm most leery about a number of the above categories, but accept that people believe all sorts of things. Viva la difference and all that.

I've never been keen on the "nothingness as Creator" view because nothingness seems to only be relative and theoretical. Everything we know is something. Nothingness is complete perfection, uniformity, equilibrium but what is observed in reality is usually almost the opposite to those qualities.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:25 am How can absolute “nothingness” (in the purest sense of the word) be in possession of the “somethingness” implicit in the idea of “creative potential”?

Ergo, the belief is total nonsense.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:51 am I've never been keen on the "nothingness as Creator" view because nothingness seems to only be relative and theoretical. Everything we know is something. Nothingness is complete perfection, uniformity, equilibrium but what is observed in reality is usually almost the opposite to those qualities.

Nothingness might be completely free of any pesky flaws or blemishes that come with somethingness, but calling it “perfection” seems to be a misapplication of the term.

If you ask me, I suggest that complete perfection can be witnessed in the creation of this vast universal illusion – an illusion that is so perfectly executed that it has some of the most intelligent humans on earth thinking that it accidentally created itself.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:54 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:25 am How can absolute “nothingness” (in the purest sense of the word) be in possession of the “somethingness” implicit in the idea of “creative potential”?

Ergo, the belief is total nonsense.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:51 am I've never been keen on the "nothingness as Creator" view because nothingness seems to only be relative and theoretical. Everything we know is something. Nothingness is complete perfection, uniformity, equilibrium but what is observed in reality is usually almost the opposite to those qualities.

Nothingness might be completely free of any pesky flaws or blemishes that come with somethingness, but calling it “perfection” seems to be a misapplication of the term.

If you ask me, I suggest that complete perfection can be witnessed in the creation of this vast universal illusion – an illusion that is so perfectly executed that it has some of the most intelligent humans on earth thinking that it accidentally created itself.

As I say, I'm just reporting. I've never been impressed with "perfection" and "purity", which I see as characterless.

There's nothing perfect about our reality IMO. It's bloody brutal! On the plus side, it takes little imagination to see where there is room for improvement. I see no advantage in creating an edifice whose creation is opaque to its inhabitants, or many of them. Ideally, evidence for creation would be too unambiguous for argument.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:06 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:39 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:16 pmReally? How do you know?

I know because I don't.

Really? How don't you know?

Because I do.

.

I think you end up with that no matter what.

Seems to me: man always makes god in his own image.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:06 pm

Seems to me: man always makes god in his own image.

Man is a concept known (an object of my desire) the object is an image of the imageless.

Can the desirer be seen? ..no it can't.

Concepts are known, the concept doesn't know, the concept doesn't exist apart from the knower, the knower cannot be known by the known concept. You are the knower of the concept, not the known concept...because concepts can't see or know anything, they are the desire of the seer knower that cannot be seen, for that which cannot be seen/known.. it is the seeing /knowing.



.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:06 pm

Seems to me: man always makes god in his own image.

Man is a concept known (an object of my desire) the object is an image of the imageless.

Can the desirer be seen? ..no it can't.

Concepts are known, the concept doesn't know, the concept doesn't exist apart from the knower, the knower cannot be known by the known concept. You are the knower of the concept, not the known concept...because concepts can't see or know anything, they are the desire of the seer knower that cannot be seen, for that which cannot be seen/known.. it is the seeing /knowing.

Henry, if you find the above difficult, I can help clarify:

Everything is a dream but you don't know it because dreams are concepts and they can't be known because that would require a knower, and since a knower does not exist then the knower, who does not exist, cannot exist and neither can the known...because concepts too aren't real and cannot see or know anything just as the seer cannot be seen, the hearer cannot be heard, nor the taster tasted, nor even the nonireceptor nonireceived.. so what you know is not known because it is not really real, only the seeing and knowing, which is also an illusion.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:51 am I've never been keen on the "nothingness as Creator" view because nothingness seems to only be relative and theoretical. Everything we know is something. Nothingness is complete perfection, uniformity, equilibrium but what is observed in reality is usually almost the opposite to those qualities.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:54 am If you ask me, I suggest that complete perfection can be witnessed in the creation of this vast universal illusion – an illusion that is so perfectly executed that it has some of the most intelligent humans on earth thinking that it accidentally created itself.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:00 am I see no advantage in creating an edifice whose creation is opaque to its inhabitants...

But what if the opacity was in place for a very good reason, similar to how (in pop culture terms) there is good reason for the Star Trekian “Prime Directive”?

Have you ever actually made the effort to truly assess what would happen if the source and reason for the edifice’s creation was not opaque?

And that is not a rhetorical question.

To pose it from a slightly different angle:

Speculatively speaking, if there truly does exist a more wondrous and transcendent level of reality awaiting us following the death of the body, have you ever given serious critical thought as to what might happen if it was not momentarily hidden from us?

It’s a valid philosophical question, Greta, so try not to brush it off as being some sort of agenda-driven intrusion.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:02 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:51 am I've never been keen on the "nothingness as Creator" view because nothingness seems to only be relative and theoretical. Everything we know is something. Nothingness is complete perfection, uniformity, equilibrium but what is observed in reality is usually almost the opposite to those qualities.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:54 am If you ask me, I suggest that complete perfection can be witnessed in the creation of this vast universal illusion – an illusion that is so perfectly executed that it has some of the most intelligent humans on earth thinking that it accidentally created itself.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:00 am I see no advantage in creating an edifice whose creation is opaque to its inhabitants...

But what if the opacity was in place for a very good reason, similar to how (in pop culture terms) there is good reason for the Star Trekian “Prime Directive”?

Have you ever actually made the effort to truly assess what would happen if the source and reason for the edifice’s creation was not opaque?

And that is not a rhetorical question.

To pose it from a slightly different angle:

Speculatively speaking, if there truly does exist a more wondrous and transcendent level of reality awaiting us following the death of the body, have you ever given serious critical thought as to what might happen if it was not momentarily hidden from us?

I think that everyone would be a lot happier, much less anxious. This is what happens with NDE survivors. They go through the experience, find it awesome, and then come back to life with much less fear of death. Having that perspective didn't seem to do them any harm so why should it hurt the rest of us?

Are you suggesting that we are being manipulated by our fear and suffering to achieve certain things? Nice system - not.

No need...I got a finely tuned bullshit detector.