Statements of non-facts

By simply saying, “God” does not bring God into existence anymore than saying “Harry Potter” will bring this fictional character into existence.

Human beings are very good at creating abstract objects. And indeed we treat ideas and thoughts as objects, often mixing them up with the real objects of the world.

59 thoughts on “Statements of non-facts

  1. landzek

    OK, I’m going to be devils advocate just because my mind by itself can’t process such complexities😁

    OK.

    Book. Which ever book it is it exists. Right? I mean so far as to say the book there on the counter in front of you. The book exists.

    Does the brown book exist? Does Brown exist and then the book also exists? Or does the book exist and then brown is something else?

    The same with the brown Harry potter book?

    At what point does abstraction become abstraction so far is then that abstraction itself does not exist?

    Do abstract things not exist?

    How am I able to contemplate something that does not exist unless I’m already placing a value or a definition that limits what is allowed to be in existence, or something that exists?

    Does the whiteness of the snow exist? Or it’s coldness? How about the calm of the snow? Does the COM exist or is it merely something that exists, excuse me, or something…. i’m not sure how I would phrase it.

    Something that is calm. What is it? Is it calm? Like something that… damn. I don’t know how I would even speak of something that is calm without saying that it exists. You’re gonna have to help me out with that.

    OK now God. There is a particle. Does the particle exist, let’s say that a particle in deed exists. Now if I say hey this particular particle that has such and such properties is “the God particle”, at what point does any part of the God particle not exist or exist.

    And then let’s say existence. Does existence exist?

    Personally I do not think this is merely a language game, I don’t think that I am perceiving something that I’m unable to put into language.

    How would you address these kind of questions?

    The ubiquitous And omnipresent and omnipotent God. I say that it exists. Can you prove to me that it does not?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. signature103 Post author

      If we ever meet then we can talk about a book (your book, for example) sitting on the table in front us. Let us imagine that we do meet and such a book exists on this table in front of the existing you and me.

      You pick up this book and hand it to me. The situation happens everyday. People handing books to people is not an unusual occurrence.

      I am happy to call this “represented” never directly known. But I must point out that we can never have direct knowledge of the other (something else) by virtue of being something else. If I can know it directly then I am that thing.

      I must point out that I do not believe we actually have direct access to ourselves either. For I am only a representation as well experienced by me.

      Yet, I will say that given the experience we think and talk of and to each other as material objects seems to point to the likelihood that we are actually material things first and foremost.

      Whereas, I cannot say the same thing about God or Harry Potter.

      You ask me to prove of God’s non-existence. But neither can you to me his existence. Such is the nature of God.

      Harry Potter is an easier matter (no pun intended). We know its creator, we know of its form as a fictional character. JK Rowling has never tried to deceived us about that. There is no elaborate hoax to make us believe that such thing exist or do not exist.

      But the there are reasons that some may want us to believe in God since there is psychological and material gain to this.

      God, Christianity, and Church are different things. Sensation, perception, conceptualisation and signification deceive.

      Like

      Reply
      1. landzek

        “You ask me to prove of God’s non-existence. But neither can you to me his existence. Such is the nature of God. “

        Yes. But I’d say that says something about us, not about God itself. And I’d say that this same condition arises with everything thing that can arise. The table, the star, the proton, the unicorn, the emotion. All these things exist Becuase they do not depend on any power we have to make then exist. They occur as they are in the act that we use them to refer to something.

        I’d say Their existence does not depend upon what I might think about them.

        Like

      2. landzek

        In a similar vein, but spoken about differently: if you have time. You may like to check our James Hillman, Healing Fiction. A shift in the manner we think about things and selves. is a main theme.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. signature103 Post author

        So God exists as tables and books do? As I said, these things have relative value to other things. God too may, but since it is absolute and constant a simple subtraction from either side of the equation would not affect the outcome. Occam’s Razor.

        So not including God in the equation will will suffice also, no?

        Like

      4. landzek

        God is effective in sense and meaning just as any thing else that exists. Even existence itself is just as effective. Each thing effects us in its own way, through sense and meaning. Each unto itself.

        Even if I say god does not exist, God has effected us in sense and meaning. Likewise a quark. And a unicorn. And a book. And a base ball bat. As well pain.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. signature103 Post author

        So to say Hindu gods exist is just as effective. That there is a bias towards God over (Hindu or primitive) gods baffles me. It says something about God and gods. It makes me suspicious. Just as talk of The Book and books makes red flags go up.

        At least unicorns and Harry Potter are not there to pretend to exist.

        But your question of what exists is an important one.

        Like

      6. landzek

        That could be Becuase, for example, when I talk about how a car engine works, you are hearing me telling you about how a particular engine design might be better or worse than another, or used for racing or 4×4 or city driving or rural.

        If I describe how an internal engine functions, I am not making claims about how it might be used for better or worse.

        Similarly. If I say that all things have sense and meaning and effect us each in their own manner, I am not making a claim about whether human begins might be offended by thier non-uniqueness in being. In fact, though, I do suggest that human beings will usually be offended at the suggestion.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. signature103 Post author

        As I said, what exists is an important question.

        This is where we (as fo most people) differ. I am trying clarify this. A task that is not easy. But I do discount God from what evidence I have so far.

        Again, this must come down what and how come to knowledge. Experience, as imperfect as it may be, is enough for me.

        Like

      8. landzek

        How you come by knowledge can be explained without your knowledge of how it is so. Or you having to agree with it.

        For example. Computers. Here I am using a computer. How does it work? Of course I can speculate all I want and it might appear quite meaningful and sensible, but it does not even come close to how computer actually functions. In fact, I would assert that there is no amount of explaining to me how a computer actually works that could get me to understand.

        What exists is the bat hitting your face. 😆. It doesn’t matter what meaning you make of it.

        What exists, as to God, is that God arises as a discounting for the evidence you have. That is the actual in your face existence of God. That it is informing you of what it is, or is not, without your consent. At every juncture where you use the term, God cannot be denied as it indeed has arisen as God. Even as you might say that God has not arisen there nor proven its existence, it is hitting you in the face with its existence.

        The same with “dinner”. Or. “Alternate universe”. Or “stem cell”. Or “salt”. Or “absolute”. Or “cold”. All these things appear in themselves, causing you to have to address them in whatever way they deem fit. Even “choice” does this.

        It’s the difference between you making meaning of me hitting you with a bat, and the actual bat hitting your actual face.

        It doesn’t matter what you think about that meaningfully it doesn’t really hurt or your flattened nose does make you look weird, I bet you would still want them to put you under before they began to fix your face.

        You and I can do all I want to justify all the aspects of the thing and the event. But there it still is, doing its thing without me or you giving it any power what so ever.

        Like

      9. signature103 Post author

        I agree. I would as far as saying that the mechanics of the human body need be understood for me to know the pain by being struck in the dave by a bat. As long as I understand the physics of it so as to avoid the bat. 😂

        Consent is an interesting word. I have never felt God so no consensual understanding ever occurred.

        That step seems assumed to have occurred to all in a kind of innateness that isn’t there.

        God isn’t dead. To me, God wasn’t alive to begin with.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. landzek

        Hence: the central thinker of Kantian privilege. God is effecting you in the same manner that farts are. Or microbes. Or gravity. Your belief has only a certain kind of effect, but it doesn’t change it’s behaving upon you without your belief. As soon as you use the term, there it is, working effecting you despite what you think or choose, or feel. For example: I challenge you to speak about the existence or the belief or the nonexistence or the non-truth of God without actually talking about God.

        Like

      11. signature103 Post author

        That is the problem. But that is a linguistic, not an ontological one. The very introduction of the concept of God had made it impossible to escape the rest of thinking. That the social constructs are in place does not mean that God is there, only that we have created systems for it.

        Why would God not make doG and other animals worship it, if it were so universal and innate? God is a human construct, something which had escaped from Pandora’s Box. And now humans are living with the consequences of it. Animals, which do not have such higher abstractions are “blessed” with not having to deal with God. I see the conception of God as a curse.

        Like

      12. landzek

        I like the version that they talk about in the movie “the matrix“ I think it was the second or third one.

        Ne-Yo is stuck in the subway thing so he can’t get out and save him out of here whatever. And then the Indian dude comes by with his daughter and is going to get on the subway train and while they’re waiting for the trainees talking with the Indian dude about things. The Indian dude is a program. As well as the daughter.
        Anyways they’re talking about something and then Neo asks “what about love?” As though the Indian guy is talking too much about systems and just kind of factual stuff so that Ne-Yo hast to ask about the human component that he indicates by “love”.

        And the Indian dude answers “love? Love is a word.”

        My point is that no matter what object you want to point to whether it be my dog or the mailbox or the car over there, at what point do I find the actual dog or the actual mailbox or the actual car?

        If we apply the same kind of philosophical approach, then I’m sure you’re well aware of, to everything we’re considering, including the idea that this is a linguistic phenomenon, we would have to also ask at what point do we find the linguistic phenomenon as the basis of things that we’re calling true or whatever?

        Why is it that when I’m talking about the dog or God I can say oh, it’s all linguistic phenomena, but when I talk about linguistic phenomena somehow it’s something else, something that transcends the idea that it’s all linguistic phenomenon. Because how could my idea about the thing that is linguistic phenomena be at Self essentially a linguistic phenomena?

        My point is that at some point, like I think you said before, we are making a decision and deciding upon what is real or true as opposed to what is not real or what does not exist.

        But then I asked upon what criteria are you basing the point at which you’re able to make the distinction? This is what I say, logistically speaking how are you able to do this?

        Like

      13. signature103 Post author

        Let me ask you – there is no sensory evidence of God but only mental one.

        I have felt fear when there was no need to. And I have felt something like a god when I had no need to. I do not agree with neither idealism or rationalism where priorities are placed on the mind. The mind lies more so than the material and experience. We have nothing but representations. But also we have no representations without first the senses. Everything that is perceived, conceived, and signified relies on expeience on the material, not of mind or God.

        Like

      14. landzek

        My suggestion is that just as windows can never occupy or reflect its own code-as-operation, so human. Beings are not limited by the “windows” os.

        But likewise, humans can, are indeed able to, see the whole of existence through the “windows” operating. That is, As though the only way we can see is through “windows”.

        My relationship with God. Say, And the fact that God does not exist, do not have to reduce to one or the other condition.

        What I see is Kierkegaard pointing out is that they either or condition is Not the total condition of existence. I do not see, as Sartre likes to be taken for, Kierkegaard arguing for the limitation of existence within the condition of either or. K Was pointing to the operating system it’s self, so to speak, that it can be known without having to answer to the operations of the windows screen, if you can follow my analogy.

        Like

      15. signature103 Post author

        Who said Windows OS had to.

        The abstraction of it is what we do best. You do not need an OS show you this. Everything else is a once removed from its operation by virtue of being something else.

        But Windows or not, this does not make God exist or not. As far as I am concerned, the icon named God could be a glitch. That the file or link does not exist.

        Like

      16. landzek

        But the appearance of what is occurring is not reducible to Windows or the Code. Both occur. But Wondows can not understand its code, even while the code explains Windows. Operating. As an analogy.

        Like

      17. landzek

        I’m not saying that the windows operating system Hass to be able to understand its code in order to have knowledge or present knowledge or otherwise arise as a whole functioning world. What I am saying is that if someone understands the code, just as an analogy, if someone is able to see the code, whenever they speak about it to someone who sees the world through the Windows operating system, they will not be able to understand what the person is talking about, because they will always see what the person is talking about with reference to the windows operating.

        Also, I am saying that God exists in the very use of the word, but I am also saying that I do not believe that God exists. These two statements represent two truths that occur despite what I want to believe about them or what reductive argument I want to make of whether one or the other is true or false.

        Every time you use the word God you are exhibiting the existence of God. When I say that I don’t believe in God, similarly to things, two activities are occurring that do not reduce to one or other condition. On one hand I am saying that there is not some sort of entity or person or energy or to which the term God refers. There is not some dude up in the sky that is the object to which the term God refers: I do not believe that God exists. But I am also saying that when you use the word God, God and it’s Omni presence and Omni potent is exerting a power over what you are able to conceive and propose as such that its existence requires no belief from me or you. I am not saying there’s some other alternative object to which the term God refers, I am saying that the term God as well as the existence of God arises in context, as existing, not merely linguistically, not only in thought, not merely as a product of mind. None of these things are sufficient to occupy or inscribe the existence of God just as when I say the word tree there is nothing that I can say which exhausts the being of the tree. Not my sensual perception of it so far as my fingers and nose and taste in sight and thinking, nor any type of thinking that I would want to impose upon it. Just as the tree and the sidewalk and Adams and molecules and corks and planets in gravity all exist under the same condition, so likewise does God. Eternally arising in context and not reducible to any sort of object that can be known absolutely. The absolution of the object and its self arises in context absolutely as it self and in itself at all times , informing us to the truth of his is his existence and effect upon our being without our choice and without our consent.

        Whew! That was a mouthful. I hope the auto voice dictation got all that right. 👽

        Liked by 1 person

      18. signature103 Post author

        You say use brings about existence of God.

        So the term “God” was not used three billion years ago. According to this logic then God did not exist. Yet God claims to be eternal. But how can God be eternal if he did not exist three billion years ago because of non-use?

        Furthermore for God to exist must requires that man exists.

        The only conclusion I can draw is that man made God.

        Like

      19. landzek

        “So the term “God” was not used three billion years ago.”
        God has arisen in context here: God exists despite what I think or believe about it.

        As well as here:
        “According to this logic then God did not exist. Yet God claims to be eternal. But how can God be eternal if he did not exist three billion years ago because of non-use?”

        Things exist in context. The non-existence of God three-billion years ago Has arisen in context. God could only not exist then Because of the existence of then, God, and now.

        “for God to exist must requires that man exists.” Likewise God and man are existing in this context. As well as what is required.

        “The only conclusion I can draw is that man made God. “

        The conclusion has been made in a context that exists.

        Liked by 1 person

      20. signature103 Post author

        Again, are we confusing “God comes into existence” and “the concept of God comes into existence?

        The context is one that does not require God’s existence, only that there is the existence of “the concept of God”.

        Certainly, Harry Potter does not exist. Only the context of literature, the novel, books, the genre of fantasy that Harry exists. God in the same way may well only exist as the physical structures which support it, nothing beyond it.

        Like

      21. landzek

        In the context of our discussion Harry Potters existence is at issue. How could we be discussing HP if he didn’t exist? How many avenues of context must we go down before we decide which context includes a valid existence of any thing we talk about?

        Does my carpet exist? In what context. ? Lets me and you start listing every single context that my carpet might exist in and every single context that it might not exist in . how will we be able to determine when we should stop listing contexts? What context, or what rule of context shall we used to be able to discern which context of my carpet exists or validates the carpet existence, and which context my carpet does not exist?

        Shall we then go into a list of context in which the context of the carpets existence or nonexistence is valid?

        How shall we to determine the criteria of that context, of which context is valid in which context is not valid?

        How Will we know when we have listed all contexts ? What criteria shall we use to determine what exists and what does not exist?

        Like

      22. landzek

        … I do not believe in God simply Becuase my believing has nothing to do with its existence. My believing has only to do with me. Likewise cars, or traffic, or hamburgers. Or the atomosphere. Or empty space.

        Like

      23. signature103 Post author

        And for me, also I see non-believing has nothing to do with his existence as well. Likewise, only to do with me. Funny that. Perhaps this is why this conversation is interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

      24. landzek

        I am positive that you feel something every time you talk about God, even it’s non existence. Why would you talk about something you felt had no censequence ?

        Like

      25. signature103 Post author

        The consequence is not with ontology or epistemology. It is with the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and social philosophy (morals and judgment). I talk about God because it hinders our understanding of these parts of philosophy.

        Like

      26. landzek

        God is hindering the philosophical understanding of mind and language. 😆God is messing with our philosophical efforts in epistemology.

        Is interesting to me that someone in a block somewhere pointed out that Aristotle equated the study of metaphysics and ontology with religion, that they were all one in the same.

        Like

      27. landzek

        Doesn’t matter if you believe anything. Hillman has some very interesting and I think credible critiques. It is a different way of thinking about things. And he puts it in a very compelling light.

        Liked by 1 person

      28. landzek

        Sounds like a bias in thinking. The connection is implicit in the idea I’m trying to convey to you that you seem to not be understanding. And so I was referring you to James Hillman because he avoids that issue, but in what he is talking about and the critique he poses I thought maybe you might begin to understand what I’m saying.

        It’s kind of like snow. If a person has never seen or experienced snow, there is simply nothing I can say or describe to them that well get them to understand what I’m really talking about when I say snow. So instead one might merely take some water and freeze it and then crunch it up right in front of them and then say this but all over the place. Then we could have a discussion about the possibility of snow.

        So I was referring you to an argument that kind of traverses the linear thinking that you seem to be involved with but in a way that I think you might be able to comprehend. You might then have an opinion that I understand in relation to what I’m sctually saying.

        Liked by 1 person

      29. signature103 Post author

        If you haven’t seen snow I can take you to a place with snow.

        What you are describing is not a place or thing that can be demonstrated … relatively.

        That relativity is better than all other options. Call that boring and linear if you like but it needs to be considered as much as any other position on its own merits.

        What is less demonstrate-able (requiring more props) is more likely to be problematic.

        Liked by 1 person

      30. landzek

        But also, I would submit that there is no logic which brings the tree into my thoughts. Which is to say there is no logical steps, no reason why a tree should be at all perceivable or contained in my thinking or its methods. There is a certain type of logic that then says well the tree only exists in my thoughts then. Once that type of logic has taken hold it is very difficult to argue, or to make an argument that gets the person out of their thoughts. Because any argument I would make they automatically understand it as occurring within their thoughts or is totally contained in thinking.

        The tree exists whether I want to think about it or not. The type of logic that moves between the tree and my thinking is not a logic that can be understood by people who think that logic is totally something that is contained by thinking. Something must occur to disrupt or to interrupt that self for filling ideal that thought contains or is able to contain or only contains everything that can exist or that can be known.

        But this of course is an analogy, a description of what is occurring, it is not an argument in the sense that you were trying to get me to propose to you..

        It’s like saying that I’m able to drive a car by programming a computer. That somehow me sitting down in writing code equates to me sitting behind wheel wheel of a car and driving down the street. Of course, the program are doing code will be able to write all sorts of code which to him or her describes how there is no difference between the driving of the car as the code is being written and the driving of the car sitting behind the wheel. But anyone who is driven a car knows that the person who is sitting behind behind the computer writing code about driving a car really has no understanding or no concept of what it is to drive a car.

        This is not to say that one is better than the other or that one is more true than the other, it is simply to point out a fundamental difference in what is occurring in the very idea of “thought“ or “thinking“ or even “logic”.

        Liked by 1 person

      31. signature103 Post author

        I guess you walk into trees a lot then. Or every step you take you require to check that your feet will fall upon ground and not be an abyss or space. Or perhaps you have no foot at all.

        Skepticism. Fine. Taken too literally and one will be a nervous wreck.

        Being in a “trust nothing” mode will be you to a mental and physical standstill.

        I’d rather get on with the tennis match than to think about what tennis actually is, or whether the ball, racquet, court, its net, the lines, rules of the game, the other player or even I exist in order to play.

        Like

      32. landzek

        Lol. Not. I do not need to trust any sort of logic that I might argue as to why the tree might hurt if I walk into it. In fact there’s probably an infinite amount of logical ideas that I can put together that would link the tree to my thinking. But nothing will establish for me why the tree should be involved with my thought except that one day I just decided that whatever since I making Hass to be the sense that I go with. Nevertheless if I keep walking forward and I run into the tree it didn’t matter what logic or reason or thinking or anything I had about it. So it doesn’t matter whether I trust my thoughts are I don’t trust my thoughts about the tree or anything like that when I run into the tree I’m going to get a bloody nose.

        Of course I might want to trust the fact that I am thinking about that I don’t want to get hurt and so I want to avoid the tree, but it really has nothing to do with the tree that just broke my nose because I ran into it. Whatever linkage there is is just me deciding that that might be the case, I meant the virtual infinity of possibilities of why it may or may not be a case, and whether or not it has anything to do with logic really comes back to that logic does not find truth, logic is just a tool, and that we assign values to what goes in and comes out of logic. I’d say.

        Like

      33. landzek

        Perhaps it is not reason that I am using to have a discussion with you. Perhaps it is inspiration, and you are only assuming that I’m using reason. How many contexts shall we list together before we come to the conclusion that either we are going to talk from the aspect or perspective of inspiration or whether we are going to talk about reason, and what criterion she would use to find out what these things are?

        I’m sure that we could come to agreement somewhere along the way but then when we add a third member… and a fourth and fifth. When do we stop adding members and what criterion do we use to decide which members are staying true to our decision of what criterion we are going to use as we go forth and adding members to our discussion over what criterion we are to use?

        Liked by 1 person

      34. signature103 Post author

        A friend of mine committed suicide this week. I am not sure if I can reason she is still here. Physically, no. Her body is now lifeless mass. So where is her mind? What is her mind? What where her pains and joys?

        What are we dealing with here, apart from grief on the part of those who knew her?

        Liked by 1 person

      35. landzek

        Well if you’re going to move into psychology and counseling, and grief, and loss, and suicide, that just happens to be what I’m in the midst of studying at this very moment, and is in fact what I deal with on a daily basis at work.

        I’m very sorry for your friend and I’m sorry for your loss.

        I’m working on the intersection between philosophy and counseling, sort of a new theory.

        And Innoway it addresses your last question.

        I will probably be writing a paper over the month of December and maybe you might want to check it out and maybe it might fall into this discussion that we’ve been having maybe answer some things from what I’m talking about.

        Liked by 1 person

      36. signature103 Post author

        I am of no illusion as to the illusion is an illusion. That is my understanding. The only way this will manifest itself is through my physical reaction.

        Grieve, yes. That she felt this way, she didn’t have to, but she did. I am sorry I wasn’t there to help her (I hadn’t spoken to her in months; she lived in another part of the country).

        What were her reasons? I do not know. Was it reasonable, I do not think so. She felt perhaps this was reasonable.

        I can cope with this. Others may not be able to. I must continue as the world does not stop. We make decisions based upon understanding. Mine are these. Someone else’s are theirs.

        You do what you do to help others as a councillor. I do what I do as a friend. We do what do based on the way we understand the world. You and I are trying to find ways to understand. Mine happens to be based on the material, yours perhaps not. But we want to help. That is all that is necessary.

        Liked by 1 person

      37. landzek

        Briefly and not thoroughly worked out yet : To me, what I call conventional philosophy, which could be the realm where thinking is understood exclusive, moves into relation with psychology and counseling exactly where the conventional (traditional/correlational) mode fails. An over lap between psychology and philosophy (rather than a philosophy of psychology or a psychology of philosophy) occurs when thought is allowed to be a thing that exists on the same level as any other thing that can exist, with the same claims to priority, the same ability to effect or be involved with everything else. In this overlap (again, as opposed to finding privilege or foundation), I propose, a true manner of the human being as being (as opposed to an exceptional case in the universe) can be discerned that is no longer primarily argumentative and reductive, but rather incorporates, includes and explains the argumentative and reductive methods as one manner that a being is able to operate and view things. “Being” thus able to account for such operation, a more accurate account of what the “Human” being is can be assessed.

        Like

      38. signature103 Post author

        So did God arise and/or did the concept of God arise?

        There is also no reason that reason is not unreasonable. It is possible that reason is unreasonable.

        Like

      39. landzek

        The concept arises the exist. And God does also, and the concept of God also. Those are three different things.

        It is interesting how reason is able to argue the validity of itself, But there’s nothing outside of reason which grants reason it’s inherent validity. And so: there is no reason that reason should be reasonable or unreasonable. There is nothing that one can establish to make the claim that reason is inherently better and unreasonableness is inherently not better or worse without using reason as the fundamental basis of what is good or bad.

        That’s the issue that philosophy has been dealing with since Spinoza and fucking 300 years ago or whatever. That’s the issue that religion claims in a more positive sense. It argues in a circle that human ability to reason is at the top of all existence able to proclaim upon existence what is inherently good bad or whatever. Even if I was to say that reason is not, which is to say that reason is somehow a product of something else, I’m using reason as the top down designator of how reason might not be the top down designator.

        🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      40. signature103 Post author

        Yes, Spinoza.

        I agree that there is one substance. I disagree that mind is part of this substance. It seems like it is, but that is just an illusion to me. The illusion exists but the mind does not.

        To call it God is like adding 1 to both sides of the equation – unnecessary when leaving out will do.

        Good and bad are contextual, not inherent in my thinking. There is nothing which can be called innate in my thinking.

        We have no choice but to be a top down designator. Anything else is an illusion, and does not exist.

        Does reason exist without the body that does the reasoning? It seems to me there is a glitch here. It is as though reason is outside a body. Hmm.

        Liked by 1 person

      41. signature103 Post author

        I think you know my answer.

        If the mind, to me, is an illusion then I will certainly say that it is an illusion also.

        But just because I say it is an illusion it does not stop being an illusion.

        Liked by 1 person

      42. landzek

        …and I don’t mean to imply that I know something that you cannot know. I mean to suggest 1) that Being is more than just discursively determined or filtered through one type of communicative knowing, and 2) that there may be different types of Being, but particular different types of Being human. One if the purposes then of philosophy is to be able to accept difference as to what it is able to do. Not through a scheme of power differential, but perhaps through a scheme upon which power is based.

        Like

    2. signature103 Post author

      God is “absolute” to be sure. Let us look the ubiquity (not the omnipotency) of God for a second. The unconditioned God cannot affect the relative reality since it does not change no matter (no pun intended) what.

      Can we not, then, just ignore the constant that is God? (Somehow seems we cannot.)

      I am happy to live a life without recourse to a god.

      Like

      Reply

Thanks for reading. Please leave a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s