Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
Post: #46  Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| Rasputin wrote: |
Nick_A...thanks for the links, they are very interesting. One thing that strikes me, which I agree with, is that Jesus is misrepresented when others claim he lay an exclusive path to salvation via a specific doctrine. The focus would then shift away from the perspective of the Apostolic Fathers, who saw Jesus as the dislosure of the Father and the redeemer of mankind's sins through the act of divine sacrifice and rebirth. I find it pertinent to note that looking at things from a non-exclusivist Christian perspective, one has to define the crucifixion and resurrection in a more general way: that is, in terms of the universal message that Christ was sending to humanity, something that cannot be encapsulated in words, logic, doctrine, tradition, or any other form of external authority. The locus of divine connection would be completely within the self.
All of this I agree with, I just don't feel the need to hold to a specific religion to do it. Admittedly, many of my sentiments lay with Buddhism, but I approach this as a path of liberation, a way of personal experience, not a doctrine whose rules I must follow and tenents I must agree with completely and everlastingly. My path works for me and it seems yours works for you. I wonder if our beliefs are truly that different. I think there is a large intersection of our beliefs in universal truth, yet some minor points that are in disagreement.
One such point of contention is a follows: it seems that holding to some form of exclusivity in Christian teachings necessitates the reality of the material world, else Christ would have, in no real way, condescended to a realm beneath that of the spiritual. This is a fine line with Church interpretation, though. He could have taught us a message by appearing within the collective illusion, speaking to each of us the truth that was already there and existed as a universal path based on experience.
My point is that if you are not exclusivist in the Christian sense, then I don't see the point in positing the reality of the material world - outside our discussion about objective morality, but we already discussed that and didn't seem to reach any consensus. I would say, though, that the God of esoteric Christianity is ineffable much in the same way the God of my belief system is. |
The conscious experience of the Crucifixion opened the way for the Holy Spirit to enable the Resurrection. Jesus having actualized the perennial tradition established a ladder that connects levels of reality. A living church is an expression of this ladder. Such a church is not a secular expression but has a living connection to the beginning of what we call Christianity.
Denying the material world is to deny the necessary experience that leads to Man's freedom from dreams that leads to awakening. Rather then escaping from the body, the desire is to experience it; to experience life in the raw without our usual dreams. Simone Weil wrote:
| Quote: |
| "A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." -- Gravity and Grace |
Rather then denying the material world, I've come to see the value of our potential to consciously experience it.
The value of Christianity to the perennial traditions is the help of the Holy Spirit for the human condition. Otherwise we would be incapable of consciously experiencing life in the raw rather then just continually reacting to it through our conditioned habits.
But the struggle is with ourselves which is why a church is important. Other then for certain exceptions, we need help to stay on course towards re-birth in whatever degree possible for us. We lack the quality of consciousness and will to remember our calling.
As you can see, for me to deny materiality, is to deny the body and its importance for man's spiritual potential.
Know Thyself rather than Escape Thyself through the denial of its existence and the inability to experience it for what it is free of our conditioned responses.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #47 Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nick_A...I'm not neglecting my physical body, I'm claiming that material reality, which inlcudes my physical body, is illusory. The first concept does not necesserily entail the other one. My physical body has an instrumental value for me while I am experiencing this life. To live lift most fully, I agree that I must take part in my physical nature as well as my spiritual. My physical nature may be illusory, but if I see it for what it is, it is still an expression of essence. Just because we can't see something as it really is doesn't mean it doesn't have any existence. The reality is that the physical body, and all material reality, is really spiritual reality. In monism, all that exists is part of essence. In idealistic monism, all that exists is, in essence, spiritual nature. The body and the entire material universe is a collective illusion of certain parts of essence. Just as we are ideas in the mind of God, so the material universe is a collective idea of humanity, and each of us constructs an idea of a physical body and lives a dream that takes place in material reality. Waking up does not entail disappearing in a vapor of smoke; it means that we see the illusion for what it is and learn to make it work best for us and everyone around us. Holding to a notion of objective morality, as I used to do, keeps us trapped within that illusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #48 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Rasputin
| Quote: |
Waking up does not entail disappearing in a vapor of smoke; it means that we see the illusion for what it is and learn to make it work best for us and everyone around us. Holding to a notion of objective morality, as I used to do, keeps us trapped within that illusion. |
What you are describing is objective morality. Man's conscious evolution begins with a certain conscious freedom from meaningless mechanical acquired attachments to the external world. All subjective morality is the result of these attachments so is a blend of the real and the unreal. Objective morality is concerned with conscious evolution or freedom from needless attachment that allows a person to become what they are rather then live in dreams.
Most are content to live in dreams but a minority are compelled to experience raw reality for the sake of freedom from dreams. To most, what Simone Weil Writes here is absurd yet a minority know exactly what she means:
| Quote: |
"Monotony of evil: never anything new, everything about it is equivalent. Never anything real, everything about it is imaginary. It is because of this monotony that quantity plays so great a part. A host of women (Don Juan) or of men (Celimene) etc. One is condemned to false infinity. That is hell itself."
-- Gravity and Grace
"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams."
-- Gravity and Grace |
excerpts as noted from GRAVITY AND GRACE by Simone Weil, New York, G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1952. edited and arranged by Gustave Thibon, translated by Emma Craufurd
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #49 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nick_A...Now we're just running around in circles. I've already explained why, in idealistic monism, objective morality is a misnomer. I've also presented my objection to objective morality in dualistic monism, which has been left unadressed. What I am describing is waking up to reality in it's suchness - pure essence. Waking up from the collective illusion does not entail objective morality, that requires additional premises that I am not willing to agree to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #50 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Rasputin wrote: |
| Nick_A...Now we're just running around in circles. I've already explained why, in idealistic monism, objective morality is a misnomer. I've also presented my objection to objective morality in dualistic monism, which has been left unadressed. What I am describing is waking up to reality in it's suchness - pure essence. Waking up from the collective illusion does not entail objective morality, that requires additional premises that I am not willing to agree to. |
Our difference is in this idea of relativity of being. You believe it is all the same and I see the elemental forces manifesting in the universe as relative in quality depending upon their origin within creation or from which cosmos they originate.
The Absolute is outside of time and space and of a quality beyond our comprehension or experience.
The origin of Man is within Creation. The origin of man on earth I believe descends from the level of the sun. This is why The Son as a higher conscious level of being is important for Man. It serves as a guide to the awakening to human conscious potential for man on earth.
This is why the two accounts of creation in Genesis is so confusing. We don't see that they are referring to two different levels of creation.
The very fact that you object to objective morality as a function of man's conscious evolution is not to say that I must as well. I prefer to contemplate man's objective meaning and purpose in the context the results of how it has been forgotten
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #51 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nick_A...you have already stated, though, that you adhere to a system of monism that includes differences in quality.
This does not explain how objective good and evil spring from the same source and belong to the same essence. Differences in qualification do not erase identity in terms of like essence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #52 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Rasputin wrote: |
Nick_A...you have already stated, though, that you adhere to a system of monism that includes differences in quality.
This does not explain how objective good and evil spring from the same source and belong to the same essence. Differences in qualification do not erase identity in terms of like essence. |
What you call evil is not objective evil. Creation itself is a necessary imperfection so must by definition include evil. Consider how Simone Weil describes it which is just approaching Creation from a different direction than normally considered. From a Wiki article:
| Quote: |
Absence is the key image for her metaphysics, cosmology, cosmogeny, and theodicy. She believed that God created by an act of self-delimitation—in other words, because God is conceived as a kind of utter fullness, a perfect being, no creature could exist except where God was not. Thus creation occurred only when God withdrew in part.
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy.
This notion of creation is a cornerstone of her theodicy, for if creation is conceived this way (as necessarily containing evil within itself), then there is no problem of the entrance of evil into a perfect world. Nor does this constitute a delimitation of God's omnipotence, if it is not that God could not create a perfect world, but that the act which we refer towards by saying "create" in its very essence implies the impossibility of perfection.
However, this notion of the necessity of evil does not mean that we are simply, originally, and continually doomed; on the contrary, Weil tells us that "Evil is the form which God's mercy takes in this world."[13] Weil believed that evil, and its consequence, affliction, served the role of driving us out of ourselves and towards God--"The extreme affliction which overtakes human beings does not create human misery, it merely reveals it."
More specifically, affliction drives us to what Weil referred to as "decreation"--which is not death, but rather closer to "extinction" (nirvana) in the Buddhist tradition—the willed dissolution of the subjective ego in attaining realization of the true nature of the universe. |
Creation as a cosmological structure is like an onion with levels of skin. As each level of skin is pulled away, the essence of the onion is revealed. but the essence of the onion is not God but rather the result of the division of ONE outside of creation and an aspect of the THREE within creation.
The point is that this decreation must include the process of involution or the continual descent into Creation and away from the Absolute. Objective evil for man is what denies human cosncious evolution in the direction of the ultimate good through higher cosmological levels. this is the knowledge of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Creation must include evil because only this perfection beyond the limitations of time and space is "good" without qualifications.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #53 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nick_A...so, are you defining evil as privation from good or as the opposing principle of good? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #54 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Absence is the key image for her metaphysics, cosmology, cosmogeny, and theodicy. She believed that God created by an act of self-delimitation—in other words, because God is conceived as a kind of utter fullness, a perfect being, no creature could exist except where God was not. Thus creation occurred only when God withdrew in part.
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy. |
Within this theodicy is there a reason why God should have withdrawn in part? Is it the orthodox reason that God wanted people to turn to him as an act of Free Will? I expect that Simone Weil is clever enough to understand how if Free Will exists it implies the each person is an individual originator. Since God is the only possible Originator, if it's true that human individuals possess Free Will, then human individuals must have this of God within each of them.Did Weil say this?
I can place this theodicy with Plato's theory of Forms within which the sovereign Form is the Good, which illuminates all the created beings ifthey are capable of being illuminated. Here is the fault in the theory of Forms; it is elitist.Did Weil get round this problem with Platonic elitism? By the way, remembering that Weil was a mystic, there is also the problem with mysticism that mystics are elite beings.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #55 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Rasputin wrote: |
| Nick_A...so, are you defining evil as privation from good or as the opposing principle of good? |
Both. In one sense, evil is a necessary mechanical influence that sustains the imperfection necessary for the universe to continue. It is an attribute of necessary universal laws that assure everything moves in circles and cycles. This is hard for us to appreciate since we value results; "the ends justify the means." The purpose of the universe is in its continual cyclical processes where apparent results are objectively meaningless though the source of our subjective conceptions of meaning.
I remember when I first read that man on earth was incapable of evil. I went through the whole Hitler, Stalin argument but I was still confronted with this idea of how can mechanical reactive creatures commit conscious evil. The idea that we cannot wasn't easy to swallow but it must be so.
Conscious evil could only be that which is capable of consciously denying human conscious evolution by feeding on the results, the transformation of this process. We know that our body mechanically feeds on qualities of nourishment. It is the same with our conscious parts. Just like our physical body can be eaten, so can the energies of our higher parts when we sacrifice them through imagination.
Objective evil is only what limits evolutionary potential. On the one hand it is a mechanical necessity and a neutral term but for man with the potential for conscious evolution, it is something that can be transformed so what obstructs this transformation is considered objectively evil.
Is yin evil in relation to yang? No. It is just a necessary attribute for a continual process upon which the universe depends
| Belinda wrote: |
| Quote: |
Absence is the key image for her metaphysics, cosmology, cosmogeny, and theodicy. She believed that God created by an act of self-delimitation—in other words, because God is conceived as a kind of utter fullness, a perfect being, no creature could exist except where God was not. Thus creation occurred only when God withdrew in part.
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy. |
Within this theodicy is there a reason why God should have withdrawn in part? Is it the orthodox reason that God wanted people to turn to him as an act of Free Will? I expect that Simone Weil is clever enough to understand how if Free Will exists it implies the each person is an individual originator. Since God is the only possible Originator, if it's true that human individuals possess Free Will, then human individuals must have this of God within each of them.Did Weil say this?
I can place this theodicy with Plato's theory of Forms within which the sovereign Form is the Good, which illuminates all the created beings ifthey are capable of being illuminated. Here is the fault in the theory of Forms; it is elitist.Did Weil get round this problem with Platonic elitism? By the way, remembering that Weil was a mystic, there is also the problem with mysticism that mystics are elite beings. |
The purpose of Creation is a whole different thread. The Hindus associate it with joy. It makes more sense to me that joy is associated with response to the necessity of creation. It is really the question if Am is necessary for I if the Absolute is "I Am." Not an easy question.
Simone expressed that though we have the potential for free will, the fact that we are incapable of it, is more proof of our wretchedness.
| Quote: |
| “Mathematics alone make us feel the limits of our intelligence. For we can always suppose in the case of an experiment that it is inexplicable because we don't happen to have all the data. In mathematics we have all the data and yet we don't understand. We always come back to the contemplation of our human wretchedness. What force is in relation to our will, the impenetrable opacity of mathematics is in relation to our intelligence.” Simone Weil |
Actualizing free will in relation to human "understanding" when we are in opposition to ourselves is more difficult then even mathematics when we know the facts. Our hypocrisy then must be the norm.
Elitism can only have a negative context for secularism. Elitism is the secular degeneration of a natural hierarchy of human "being" based on a conscious connection to higher influences. We don't appreciate objective relative quality in humanity as a whole since we are caught up in concepts of secular equality.
Yet the essence of man as it manifests on the physical plane does so in different blends. What is often the most attractive for secularism may be spiritually dead and what appears strange to secularism can easily be the most spiritually alive. This old idea is carried on in various myths like the Ugly Duckling for example.
The point is that concerns for elitism have prevented many from appreciating the importance of a hierarchy of human being which is what Plato was referring to.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #56 Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nick_A...here's the problem. It doesn't matter how you cash it out, if you agree with at least one of the following: 1)that evil is privation from good, and 2)that evil is defined in opposition to good, you have the following contradictions:
1)If evil in privation from good but not defined in opposition to good, then you have to explain how evil is actually defined as evil. If evil is a byproduct of involution in the material realm, then where did this evil originate? Was it created by God? Is it inseparably a part of the material universe? In the first option, you have evil created by good (since God is good), which defies the goodness of God. In the second option, then the material universe becomes evil as a result of privation from God, and is inseparatble from the status of a principle or evil that is defines as that which exists in alienation from God. But how could the second really be the case, if reality is a monad? Even if there are material and spiritual manifestations of the monad, it is still the monad, still one essence. Good and evil cannot be of the same essence and still be good and evil per definition.
2) If evil is defined in opposition to the good, then it must be created from a source independent of the good, else you run into the aforementioned problems. What is this external source? Is it a principle of evil? It must be, if we are to define evil as evil. Where did it originate? If God created it, we defeat the purpose of the presuppostion and run into the aforementioned contradictions. If God didn't create it, then there must be some naturally existing yin/yang opposition between good and evil, such that if one exists, so must the other. This defeats the teological and ontological purpose the the universe defined as you do in terms of evolution from involution. This would also make it impossible for reality to be a monad.
These contradictions you still have not addressed. You can't just get out of the problem by positioning evil as a mechanical byproduct of the universe.
My original point remains: Objective morality is at odds with monism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #57 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hi Rasputin
This is really hard to explain without first agreeing on cosmological levels of reality. The universe functions both through conscious intent (action) and mechanics (reaction} to universal laws. Objective evil can only refer to conscious action and its evolutionary potential in contrast to the mechanics of involution.
The mechanics of dust to dust on earth is not evil. The process is in accordance with universal purpose. No consciousness beyond animal reaction is required for reactive life on earth to function. Everything in this collective process of life on earth eats everything else as part of this living machine. We can say that nature is cruel or that man is evil but these are just interpretations of mechanical reactions so only express subjective interpretations or reactions to events.
This is why objective evil can only be defined in relation to the potential for the goal of man's conscious evolution or the evolution of the "being" of Man. Objective good for man furthers conscious evolution and objective evil for us are the inner obstacles that deny it. This contrasts to subjective good which furthers earthly aims and subjective evil that denies them.
Objective evil is a natural part of the interactions of universal laws. The mechanics of the universe strive for everything within it to be part of cycles. This sustains the universe and assures its continuance.
Man on earth exists in accordance with nature's laws. However, having the potential for conscious evolution, man must strive to become free of the attachments to the results of the mechanical habits acquired by our being and awakening to a conscious perspective. The striving towards awakening is the direction of the objective good for man and all our learned habitual behavior that we call "ourselves" struggles against this awakening but rather interprets it to serve our misguided self importance many call egotism.
Evil then is not a creation but a natural reaction to the mechanics of cyclical universal laws that sustain the universe.
Objective Evil cannot be in the Absolute since there is no inner opposition. Evil for man is that within our nature within creation that denies the good our heart is drawn to and the conscious spiritual potential of our being.
There is no contradiction when you see that the Absolute is outside the limitations of time and space and evil relates to conscious evolutionary "being" potential in accordance with universal laws within Creation bounded by time and space.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #58 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nick_A...while I appreciate your response I still have the same root problem with what you are saying, though the perspective on it has shifted a bit. Allow me to explain.
Now we're talking about the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity. You're saying that a choice that arises within the consciousness of man can result in evil, or at least this is what I gather. This element of choice, granted by God, would then mean that evil is not created by God, rather by man. You are calling this objective evil.
The problem with this is that it's not objective evil, it's subjective evil. You've associated subjective good and evil with worldly aims and objective good and evil with spiritual aims. There is something about this that makes sense and I agree with it to an extent, but looking deeply into it there seems to be a category error being made.
Objectivity and subjectivity are not defined in terms of their subject matter. Per relevant example, objectivity and subjectivity are not defined in terms of their reference to spiritual or material reality. Objectivity and subjectivity are defined in terms of locus of evaluation. Objectivity means that we can make a judgement that holds true without the limitation of our individual perspective. Subjectivity means that we make a judgement within the limitations of our own perspective. Whatever the contents of our belief systems happen to be does not change their status of being objective or subjective.
One can conceive of various philosophies that serve as examples of what I'm talking about. Pragmatism, for example, is a form of realistic materialism, yet it's concern is with objective judgements. George Berkeley's idealistic monism, on the other hand, is likewise concerned with objective judgements. A genuine skeptic, however, such as David Hume, is locked into subjective judgements and renounces any claims to objectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity is an epistemic issue, not a metaphysical one, like you are making it out to be.
I understand that from your perspective, what you believe is objective and belief systems that differ from yours are subjective. This is a common fallacy we all fall into on some level. The burden of proof then falls on you to demonstrate 1)the correctness of your belief system and 2)that the epistemic process you underwent to reach your conclusions was objective whereas that underwent by those who disagree are subjective. Other than this, the only alternative would be to replace the second option with: demonstrate that obejtivity and subjectivity is a metaphysical, not an epistemic issue. The problem with this option is that, according to definition, these two are epistemic issues, even though they can have metaphysical implications.
This again leaves us with my original point: objective morality is in opposition to monism. Casting objectivity and subjectivity in metaphysical terms does not change the fact that is an epistemic issue. What we are talking about is metaphysics, not epistemology.
Belinda...I just wanted to make a point to address your reaction to perceived elitism. Here's the way I see it. Most people are not enlightened. If the contents of enlightenment were common knowledge, then most of us would probably already be enightened and this world would not be in the sorry state it's in. What I'm talking about is being idealistic. Being elitist, on the other hand, is believing there is some form of secret knowledge that the majority are not privy to and holding them to certain social requirement to gain access to this knowledge. I could care less about social requirements. If I had my way, every human being on the face of the planet would become enlightened overnight. Of course, this would be idealism carried to an extreme, but you get my point.
The reason that spiritual knowledge is difficult to attain is because it takes a lot of personal devleopment. It's not an easy road. It requires facing a lot of pain. But if we want happiness, we have to face it. We have to be honest with ourselves about everything. There is no objective standard or social dictate that states spiritual knowledge is reserved for an elect few. In fact, spiritual knowledge entails the need for equality. We should do everything possible to include everyone is spiritual knowledge. If we lowered our standards below the definition of spiritual knowledge, though, then it would cease to be spiritual knowledge we are seeking and we would lack a quest for sufficient improvement in the world as a collective and in our lives as individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #59 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thanks Rasputin. While I agree with you in my feelings, because while what you are saying seems to me to be true I also want to be sure that I understand what you are saying.
When you refer to spiritual knowledge do you intend mystical knowledge. Of course I don't mean 'mystical' in the corrupt sense of clairvoyamce or any vague Newe Age sense, I mean mystical in the sense of what people who have spent years of dedication to enlightening practices have learned.I am not even sure that when you say 'enlightenment' I understand. I think the experience of enlightenment must be like being able to see a colour that previously has been nothing but a name of a colour.
I have heard that all people can become enlightened if they practise enough. Thich Nhat Han makes it sound gradual and quite easy. However Plato's supreme good is ,I think, not enlightenment but the ability, limited to a few persons, to be completely rational.
Nick_A explains how Simone Weil combines mysticism with Platonic Form of Good,(I think) and despite my trying to understand I don't get it.This is because I have believed that Plato's Form of the Good is comparable with reason but not with compassion. It may be reasonable for philosopher kings to rule over the hoi polloi , but it's not necessarily compassionate.This is what I meant by elitist.
The Bodhisattvas are idealistic according to your description of idealistic.I wonder if my confusion is not separating what I want to be the case (success for the Bodhisattvas) from what is the case(that every known society, including societies of other social animals, has a ruling elite).
A different matter is about George Berkeley.
| Quote: |
George Berkeley's idealistic monism, on the other hand, is likewise concerned with objective judgements.
|
How can Bishop Berkeley be a monist when he believes in pre-established harmony? I am reminded of the intelligent design argument. Doesn't pre-established harmony imply God, and doesn't a Christian bishop's God imply two substances of being?
************************************************** *
Nick_A wrote #48
| Quote: |
| What you are describing is objective morality. Man's conscious evolution begins with a certain conscious freedom from meaningless mechanical acquired attachments to the external world. All subjective morality is the result of these attachments so is a blend of the real and the unreal. Objective morality is concerned with conscious evolution or freedom from needless attachment that allows a person to become what they are rather then live in dreams. |
Your last sentence of the quote (become what they are) could fit with a naturalist theory of being in which morality consists of harmonising with what is the case. In other words, those who are in the process of evolving are more in harmony with the most knowledge and experience of all that is.Objective good, then, and I am remembering Rasputin's post today about 'objective' and 'subjective', is engaging with the process of enlightenment and not top -down objective good. Process theology in other words.Morality as compass and map not as destination.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #60 Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda...Plato's form of the good is defined in terms of reason. If we take the locus of evaluation off of reason and place it on noesis, then we transcend the subject matter that reason has the ability to make accurate judgements about. What reason judged to be the form of the good, then, is revealed to be the very essence of reality, which transcends the ability of reason to describe. Likewise, dualities such as good/evil would no longer apply to it. It would be pure "suchness".
This is very similar to the problem I pointed out earlier of how Neoplatonism posits the One as indescribable yet proceeds to desribe it with rational categories, following in Plato's footsteps while incorporating more elements of Pythagoreanism that Plato was willing to. Admittedly, I don't think Socrates focused so much on reason, since he would talk all the time about virtue yet always stated he didn't know what it was while trying to subvert the rational arguments of others, showing how they were contradictory through dialectical method. Unfortantely, as is very common in spiritual traditions, his successors incorporated more and more rational description to what was originally supposed to be a noesis. By the time Iamblichus came along, Neoplatonic emanation was so fleshed out into rational categories it was almost more like a science than spirituality! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
