Take wild guess at what exactly?
I suggest that you actually read what I write before you comment.
You writing this further shows the reason why you have responded previously.
Take wild guess at what exactly?
For your first question. I do not have the arrogance to think that what I think is right is objectively right. No true philosopher will assume that. A true philosopher always seeks to learn and understand without cease.evolution wrote: ↑May 1st, 2020, 8:47 pmIs this an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, which will hold true forever more, or more just a case of what you think and/or believe is true?
Why are you 'trying to' explain 'that' what you say will never be comprehended anyway?
This sounds somewhat like you are trying to convey that you have already comprehended what you say will never be comprehended?
So, then do you agree that the so called "mystery of God" could be comprehended by human beings one day, and in fact may have actually been discovered and solved already?Mark_Lee wrote: ↑May 1st, 2020, 9:38 pmFor your first question. I do not have the arrogance to think that what I think is right is objectively right. No true philosopher will assume that. A true philosopher always seeks to learn and understand without cease.evolution wrote: ↑May 1st, 2020, 8:47 pm
Is this an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, which will hold true forever more, or more just a case of what you think and/or believe is true?
Why are you 'trying to' explain 'that' what you say will never be comprehended anyway?
This sounds somewhat like you are trying to convey that you have already comprehended what you say will never be comprehended?
Sure, you can talk about something without knowing it and make out that you do know it. But why do that?
If you say things which are obviously false or say things as though they are absolutely true, then I say there is something wrong with that. You can believe that there is nothing wrong with that if you want to.
Why bother talking about some thing, which you believe will never be comprehended anyway. You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
In order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
I think you've made good points here. I would add that although we do use language to communicate knowledge, i.e. factual information, we also use it as a form of expression (and these two usages are always intermixed, actually). Communication is not just about passing along information about the things we comprehend, but it is also a way to show who we are, how we feel, what we are experiencing. Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases. We use language to try to show things that we know or imagine which language can't fully capture. What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong. Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge. But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form. It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.NukeBan wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 amIn order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.
And so you ask the reasonable question. Why do it? Why discuss any of this?
One reason can be to discover that no one on any side knows what they're talking about. We can if we wish use the process of philosophy to rip to shreds all claims to knowledge on this topic. And once all claims to knowledge are demolished, we are left with nothing.
We went looking for God knowledge, but instead we found nothing. So, the investigation wasn't a failure, we just didn't find what we expected to find, that's all.
Some people won't like what the investigation has found, and so they will ignore the results and go running back in to the ego inflating glory of fantasy knowings, as is their right.
Other people will take the investigation more seriously and be more faithful to the process, and upon discovering nothing will ask practical questions such as..
What can we do with this nothing that we've discovered? How can we put it to practical use?
The thread question has an unfounded assumption at its heart. You have much to establish before asking any more dumb questions.
Duh. You asked me "what is god to you".
NO I DID NOT.
I see all commentators on the subject to be people of faith operating from a very human personal agenda. Some people have a faith in an infinite God which lies beyond proof, while others have a faith in the infinite relevance of human reason which lies beyond proof. In both cases, there is a very human need to know which arises from a place in us which is deeper than surface level intellectual curiosity. We want The Answer, and we find it on whatever channel our personal circumstances can most easily relate to.What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong. Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge.
Yes! The older I get the more I appreciate the power of art. Increasingly philosophy seems a weak medium in comparison, but it's what I was born to do, so I try to accept my genetic destiny with a sense of humor.Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases.
I seem to agree it's not useless to talk about such things, given that I find myself doing it all the time. That said, you also remarked...But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form.
To me, it seems most useful to uncover and explore that which divides us, which I propose to be thought itself. It's not the content of thought which is the real source of the divisions, but the medium itself, which may explain why such human problems are so intractable.It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.
This is the exact same point that I have been saying.NukeBan wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 amIn order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.
Do not mistake what I actually said and turn it around to mean in relation to "discuss 'any of this' ".
This is obviously already KNOWN. Considering the evidence for this has been around for thousands of years now, hopefully everyone already KNEW this.
Not necessarily so. But not unlikely as well.
Half the problem, if not more, is 'expecting'.
If some people will not like what the investigation has found, then this is a sure sign and proof that they already have an expectation of what they were searching for.
Seems all very useless and a very fruitless exercise.
Are they ALWAYS intermixed, actually?Thomyum2 wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 amI think you've made good points here. I would add that although we do use language to communicate knowledge, i.e. factual information, we also use it as a form of expression (and these two usages are always intermixed, actually).NukeBan wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
In order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.
The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.
And so you ask the reasonable question. Why do it? Why discuss any of this?
One reason can be to discover that no one on any side knows what they're talking about. We can if we wish use the process of philosophy to rip to shreds all claims to knowledge on this topic. And once all claims to knowledge are demolished, we are left with nothing.
We went looking for God knowledge, but instead we found nothing. So, the investigation wasn't a failure, we just didn't find what we expected to find, that's all.
Some people won't like what the investigation has found, and so they will ignore the results and go running back in to the ego inflating glory of fantasy knowings, as is their right.
Other people will take the investigation more seriously and be more faithful to the process, and upon discovering nothing will ask practical questions such as..
What can we do with this nothing that we've discovered? How can we put it to practical use?
Yes communication can be either of the two, or be the two of them together. We can show one or the other or both together, but is it really true that they are always actually intermixed?
This can take place.
Is that what you do.
But 'God', Itself, to me, was exactly empirically and logically obtained information, which, by the way, can be argued and shown, very simply and very easily, to be true, right, and correct. This is because what the word 'God' actually could be referring to was revealed to me empirically and logically.
Okay, but I certainly do not profess any faith at all in God.
If people want to 'try' and speak about what they have faith in but actually do not yet know what that thing is, then so be it. All well and good. But I suggest to them to not be to surprised if the get questioned about or challenged on what they say and believe is true.
The word 'mediate' also comes from 'medium', to be 'mediator' or 'media' between two parties. To 'meditate' is to be in the 'middle' or to be in 'between' the two; the 'human-self' and the God-Self, and to 'mediate' through 'communication' bring the two together, or unify, as One. This is best done through 'common-sense', which is just 'that' what makes sense to EVERY one.
Does it really? And what is that assumption at its heart exactly?
You establishing whether you KNOW for sure what the presumed 'unfounded assumption' IS exactly, or whether you are just making an 'assumption' yourself could be one thing to establish here first.
Well 'you' have not yet seen this 'commentator' yet.NukeBan wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm Good post Thomyum2!
I see all commentators on the subject to be people of faith operating from a very human personal agenda.What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong. Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge.
Why do you say this cannot be proven?
Is this an absolute, irrefutable fact?
Not ALL people find The Answer this way at all.
I agree that it is 'thought', itself. But to be more specific it is only some 'thoughts', like; assumptions, beliefs, judgments, et cetera themselves, which divides human beings from each other. But, to be even more specific it is the actual words that we use, which divides or unites us. And to be even more specific again it is the actual meaning, which we all personally put in and behind the words we use that either separates or divides us all.NukeBan wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pmYes! The older I get the more I appreciate the power of art. Increasingly philosophy seems a weak medium in comparison, but it's what I was born to do, so I try to accept my genetic destiny with a sense of humor.Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases.
I seem to agree it's not useless to talk about such things, given that I find myself doing it all the time. That said, you also remarked...But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form.
To me, it seems most useful to uncover and explore that which divides us, which I propose to be thought itself.It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.
Actually that is not real at all. To say, "I am ... [one of these things or any thing else like them] is just false to begin with. To SHOW, in action, just how saying these false things causes division and just how quick it happens, just try and define one of those things and have your definition agreed with by all or even most people. What actually divides you all is your own 'interpretations' of what words actually mean. I agree, however, that these divisions lay only on the 'surface'. Go deeper and understand that every one has their own different definitions for words, then agreement and thus unity can be very quickly achieved. Discover or learn the very reason WHY every one thinks the way they do, then UNDERSTANDING for ALL, and thus UNITY with and for ALL happens almost immediatelyNukeBan wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm It's not the content of thought which is the real source of the divisions, but the medium itself, which may explain why such human problems are so intractable.
Philosophy typically concerns itself with the content of thought, and in that context we might say that what divides us is that I'm a Muslim and you're a Hindu, or I'm a Protestant and you're a Catholic, or I'm a Republican and you're a Democrat etc. All that's real enough, but such divisions are on the surface.
What is more fundamental than 'thought' for human being?
But as I was saying above, it is not all thought that is driving human beings apart. Only some of it does.
One example of just how it is the separate and different 'interpretation' of things, words, definitions, and/or meanings can be shown by me saying, 'arguing' over these things is probably the best thing that could ever be done, and which if done will actually UNIFY us ALL, and then we can ALL start living in peace and harmony together as One.
But people, through religion, do not propose their 'theory'. What they do instead is propose their 'beliefs', which is a whole other matter.
It amounts to exactly the same thing.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023