volgadon Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 See the references that I recently provided.A bunch of wiki articles that don't even really mention pantheism?Do you expect me to believe that all of the people listed there believed in pantheism? If so, you have shown that your claims are demonstrably false. 1
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Kant only went so far and if you had read any philosophy written since then you would know how silly a pronouncement that is. Read some Quine about the analytic and synthetic distinctionEdit: here's a reference http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.htmlTry and show that arithmetic does not work. I propose that this will forever be completely impossible due entirely to the self-evident (completely proves itself true entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words) fact the arithmetic does work.It is the set of self-validating interlocking tautologies that makes arithmetic infallibly work correctly.My point is that the only knowledge that can be completely relied upon (if any knowledge can be completely relied upon) is the knowledge that is entirely derived from pure analysis of the meaning of words. Purely conceptual knowledge does not require any conceptions that are based on physical reality.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Old doesn't mean false, mfb. Don't fall for the fallacy of progress, meaning that just because something is more recent it is better or more true. The New Testament is 2000 years old and hasn't been supplanted yet The history of philosophy is just that -- a history of who thought what when. It doesn't mean that newer thoughts are better than older ones.That's a good point in a way- but the fact is that these giants of philosophy have had hundreds of years of fairly intelligent people examining their arguments under microscopes trying to find flaws so that they could get their Phd's and make a living teaching this stuff.Seeing them as "true" even though they're old is problematic in my view simply because the poor geniuses of old did not have thousands of nearl-as-good-minds trying to pick them apart over hundreds of years.If you want to disregard everyone who has put these guys in their cross hairs and taken pot shots, that's nice but it is kind of sticking your head in the sand or essentially saying "talk to the hand" and putting your hands over your ears to not at least consider that they might not have gotten everything exactly right.If you want to say "OK- that's it- I am going with Aristotle and basing my life on his philosophy" that is one thing- it's a Pragmatic decision to go with what you believe, like the decision to be Catholic or Mormon or Buddhist.It is a decision to stay on a path that you have chosen. Nothing wrong with that.But if you are looking to see which argument is better and if there are newer ones which demolish the older ones, I think it is just sticking your head in the sand. It is not the pursuit of a better path, that is for sureBut there is something to be said for choosing a path and sticking to it right or wrong. It gives great peace and comfort.But some of us do not find that satisfying. I am a hunter on a quest for big game and I haven't found anything bigger than Mormonism but I am always on the hunt. Everything I see pales in comparison in my opinion. But if something else comes along, I am out to find the best picture of truth I can find. 1
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 A bunch of wiki articles that don't even really mention pantheism?Do you expect me to believe that all of the people listed there believed in pantheism? If so, you have shown that your claims are demonstrably false.The Zohar contains a discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of Ego to Darkness and "true self" to "The Light of God," and the relationship between the "universal energy" and man.In other words it talks about the true nature of reality. There is only one actual true nature of reality.
volgadon Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 http://books.google.com/books?id=1CA-uM--2VQC&pg=PA196&dq=kant+solovki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UPC4UMzlBsG9ygHXhoHYCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kant%20solovki&f=false 1
volgadon Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 The Zohar contains a discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of Ego to Darkness and "true self" to "The Light of God," and the relationship between the "universal energy" and man.In other words it talks about the true nature of reality. There is only one actual true nature of reality.You are evading my CFR. You have not found a source showing that Jewish mysticism is the same as Hindu mysticism, nor have you provided the names of Jewish mystics who were pantheists. 1
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 You are evading my CFR. You have not found a source showing that Jewish mysticism is the same as Hindu mysticism, nor have you provided the names of Jewish mystics who were pantheists.As I have said many times the only reliable source of this is the first-hand direct experience itself.Do you think that there are many different true natures of reality that correspodnd to the divergent opinions?
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Try and show that arithmetic does not work. I propose that this will forever be completely impossible due entirely to the self-evident (completely proves itself true entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words) fact the arithmetic does work.It is the set of self-validating interlocking tautologies that makes arithmetic infallibly work correctly.My point is that the only knowledge that can be completely relied upon (if any knowledge can be completely relied upon) is the knowledge that is entirely derived from pure analysis of the meaning of words. Purely conceptual knowledge does not require any conceptions that are based on physical reality.Honestly I think this is pretty simplistic.Math works because as you say it is a self-defining group of tautologies. It works because it is DEFINED to work. It is not even "knowledge" in my book, the reality is that "A=A" doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about the world. A always equals A because that is what is MEANT by the word "equals".So what? A tree is a tree. A house is a house. Popper would argue that Darwinian evolution is a tautology- "what survives, survives". THIS is "knowledge"?The way I see it, these are essentially linguistic definitions and I am a linguistic constructivist. If all reality is nothing but definitions, I am fine with that but that is not interesting.What IS interesting is testing to see if those definitions really work and are therefore "true". It is not surprising that one term of a definition would "equal" another- that is what definitions are supposed to do. But it is the discussion about whether or not they ARE "equal" that leads to truth. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 There is only one actual true nature of reality.Oops.Lots of undefined terms there. 2000 years of philosophy worth. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Maybe if I cut to the chase. There can only be one singular fundamental actual true nature of reality.There can only be one way that is the way that things really are.Since truth is essentially nothing more than a mathematical mapping from abstract representations of actuality to actuality itself, there is only one truth regarding the actual true nature of reality.Oh my. Just a tad debatable.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 As I have said many times the only reliable source of this is the first-hand direct experience itself.Do you think that there are many different true natures of reality that correspodnd to the divergent opinions?Yep.
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Yep.So those that think that God does not exist, and those that believe that God does exist are both equally correct?
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 So those that think that God does not exist, and those that believe that God does exist are both equally correct?Nope. I don't recall saying that. Correct about what? And what do you mean by "correct"? - THAT is the question.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I have experienced God directly and others say they have not. That's all I know. I don't worry too much about what others say about it. Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Nope. I don't recall saying that. Correct about what? And what do you mean by "correct"? - THAT is the question.The law of non-contradiction would say that either the statement [God exists] is true or it is not true.If God does indeed exist, then it is correct to say that {God exists} and incorrect to say that {God does not exist}.The next level of analysis would be the nature of God. Many people have conceptions regarding the nature of God. Some of these conceptions are mutually exclusive. Those that are mutually exclusive can not both be equally true.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) The law of non-contradiction would say that either the statement [God exists] is true or it is not true.Yep. That's what the law would say. But you have not defined "true" or "exists", nor have you defined "God" either.So I am not sure what you are talking about. I mean we ARE talking so this is about words- right?On a Buddhist definition of "God" (good luck with that) does God "exist"? I mean I thought we were talking about the ineffable here and now you want to make it "effable"? Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I mean that is the problem you get when you start saying that all these descriptions are "ONE".The words have no meaning outside a specific context and you are not providing one. Catholic? Buddhist? Mormon? Zen? Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Apologies to all who have seen this 19 million times
Calm Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I personally only have a passing knowledge of Islamic mysticism (Rufi, Hafez) and no knowledge of Jewish mysticism. I did at one point intensely study and practice Theravadan Buddhism. I know Catholic mysticism pretty well.You are obviously not one of the select few since you disagree with him therefore he can ignore your comments.
Calm Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Maybe if I cut to the chase. There can only be one singular fundamental actual true nature of reality.There can only be one way that is the way that things really are.Since truth is essentially nothing more than a mathematical mapping from abstract representations of actuality to actuality itself, there is only one truth regarding the actual true nature of reality.Define how you are using "mathematical mapping" please.
Calm Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Try and show that arithmetic does not work. I propose that this will forever be completely impossible due entirely to the self-evident (completely proves itself true entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words) fact the arithmetic does work.It is the set of self-validating interlocking tautologies that makes arithmetic infallibly work correctly.My point is that the only knowledge that can be completely relied upon (if any knowledge can be completely relied upon) is the knowledge that is entirely derived from pure analysis of the meaning of words. Purely conceptual knowledge does not require any conceptions that are based on physical reality.And what is the source of the "meaning of words"?
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Yep. That's what the law would say. But you have not defined "true" or "exists", nor have you defined "God" either.Truth is (as I have already provided) the mathematical mapping between abstract representations of actuality (ie words) and actuality itself. Exist in the context that I used it means physically manifest. The term God is the set of every possible conception of God, taken individually, one at a time.
Calm Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 As I have said many times the only reliable source of this is the first-hand direct experience itself.Do you think that there are many different true natures of reality that correspodnd to the divergent opinions?And how does one acquire first hand experience that proves all Jewish mystics were pantheists? And why are not the words of these Jewish mystics describing their own beliefs not enough? Are they lying when their language is specifically a rejection of pantheism?
peteolcott Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Define how you are using "mathematical mapping" please.A precise correspondance between every unit of meaning of a statement and some other entity.Example: The last word in this sentence is five.
Recommended Posts