I am sorry if it was too challenging.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 5:22 pmRandomly arranging words as you have done, is not evolution. Its just a sad and desperate way to impose meaning on the universe.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 8:33 amIt is not until they are ready to learn, that babies realize what those plastic alphabets they chew on really are. It is called evolution. We continually evolve.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 3:26 amAll just fantasy creations; bluster and no meaningAmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 13th, 2022, 6:59 pm
You are right, i do use god, because this forum is in English, the dominant religion is Christian, and it is easier to go with the common moniker. Otherwise i would use Brhman which means Existence, all that exists. It has a different connotation from a creator god, as it creates nothing and is in everything that exists, and there is nothing that in which it does not exist. It is what i describe as Divinity, eternal, infinite, transcends time and space. And it is not just within me it is all there is.
I feel sorry for you.
Atheism is not Logical
- AmericanKestrel
- Posts: 356
- Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
- Location: US
Re: Atheism is not Logical
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Ok. So logic to you is that humans (or some other similar kind of aliens) are 100% certain to be the ultimate expression of sentience in the universe, and we can have total confidence that aggregated sentience cannot possibly emerge.
Even Dawkins would disagree with you.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Thank you for making my case.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 6:29 pmLogic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 5:18 pmFine show the logical working.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 8:24 amI will answer in the same vein, by (unjustified) assertion: there IS logic there.
It's a bit like a pantomime, don't you think? "Oh yes he did!", "Oh no he didn't."
Alternatively, we could discuss matters honestly, freely admitting (where appropriate) that we are posting feelings or opinions, not justified and justifiable fact. It's a bit radical, I admit...
But since it is not there there is nothing more I can do but point.
Nothing in the text is a formal proposition that is tested. It's just blind expostulations.
Since there is not sufficient reason to believe in a god, then atheism is the default position requiring no assertions.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
No need to apologise for you lack of reason, your failing is a common human trait.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 8:02 pmI am sorry if it was too challenging.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 5:22 pmRandomly arranging words as you have done, is not evolution. Its just a sad and desperate way to impose meaning on the universe.AmericanKestrel wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 8:33 amIt is not until they are ready to learn, that babies realize what those plastic alphabets they chew on really are. It is called evolution. We continually evolve.
I feel sorry for you.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
I have resolved to no longer respond to cheap straw men. If you want to discuss something then you should not misrepresent your interlocutor's POV.Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 9:45 pmOk. So logic to you is that humans (or some other similar kind of aliens) are 100% certain to be the ultimate expression of sentience in the universe, and we can have total confidence that aggregated sentience cannot possibly emerge.
Even Dawkins would disagree with you.
I expected better from you.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Alta!Atla wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 3:08 pmIsn't metaphysics a broader term? Taking one step back, I'd say it's fairly basic metaphysics that things are void of inherent essence. Essence is just what something is like.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 2:44 pm Alta!
Thank you kindly. Let's parse each one individually if I may (I'll pick the first two):
1.In both existentialism and metaphysics, essence refers to the nature of one's own existence, particularly, but not necessarily, involving the concept of ex nihilo. The perception by the senses that only you yourself exist, but you wonder about what, where, why, how etc. about your existence, speaks to one's essence. Of course, you could think of it as the antecedence or causal relationship to one's existence or even unity of opposites philosophy if that helps. (?)
2. As Hume would argue, as well as other existentialists, we only experience our own existence. We do this through Being self-aware, the senses and subjectivity. For example, only you know how to be you. Further, your truth is different than my truth. Accordingly, you have both objective and subjective truth's that exist in the mind. For example, subjective truth's could also speak to one having a religious experience, one's musical preferences, love interests, perception of colors, and so on. You know, essences are also relative to the quality (Qualia) of Being or the mystery or phenomena of conscious existence itself. (?)
Some philosophies like phenomenology and guess existentialism? often seem to make the serious mistake of reifying essences, treating them as kind of things that exist by themselves.
So how can something literally speak to one's essence, or what do you mean by that?
And why would I perceive only myself to exist. That would only be the case if I would't assume an external world behind the appearance of the external world. Which would be a pretty unnatural assumption for my senses. And even in solipsism, I wouldn't be sure if I am this entire "mind" or just a part of it. And none of this really has to do with essences.
Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. The Existential ethos is a bit more bleak in that much like in antiquity, Ecclesiastes writes about human finitude, among other paradoxical things which exist and just is (with no explanation).
I think it is acceptable to think of essences of something beyond human comprehension. My approach to philosophy essentially mirrors that (illusion, paradox, consciousness breaking rules of logic, etc.). As you mention phenomenology, that in itself implies those concepts including that of mystery, much like the existence of consciousness itself.
Speaking to one's essence was meant figuratively, however, your question ironically enough uncovers another question about self-awareness. In a cognitive way, much like the idea of law of attraction, we can speak to ourselves consciously or subconsciously (Freud would also say 'unconsciously'). Sometimes we are aware of our inner voice, and sometimes we are not. This voice can come from our stream of consciousness projecting thoughts/ideas and images uncontrollably (like when you are driving while daydreaming). Or we can control certain thoughts and project intentionality. So in a cognitive science context, we can experience a sense of one's own essence.
The final question about exclusivity relative to knowing only yourself (that you feel you exist), is another way of saying that we have both subjective and objective truth's. Perhaps one philosophical question there would be, which truth takes primacy in Being?
Thanks for the discussion. We can get to your other concerns after we parse these a bit... . Actually, since it is a bit off topic, maybe start another thread and we can include all your enumerated questions. Call it something like 'what does it mean to have self-awareness/essence v. existence'.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Drawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!
Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Alta!Atla wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 9:32 amDrawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!
Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
Well, to your first point, you do have a way of knowing, you just don't realize it. Three quick analogies:
1. The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. ....But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites.[2]
2. Consider opposing ways of perceiving an object. And let's make use of abstract mathematics (the metaphysics of math) as the example. You may look at an object, and observe its structure by your senses of sight, touch, smell and so on. Aside from it's emergent properties, the material object has contained within itself an abstract formula of existence. It's essence, would be analogous to its mathematical formula that created it (i.e., a structural beam, bridge, etc.). Much like the dual-way of understanding (the laws of) gravity to avoid falling objects, perhaps the question for you might be, are there two ways of observing, sensing and experiencing the world? Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
3. Consider the concepts in logic of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Are both those things knowable? Are both required for apperception of a thing? And, what is the opposite of logical necessity?
4. Consider our the thing called wonderment that we use to discover things (which by itself is metaphysical and has little if any Darwinian survival advantages). Then consider how a physicist discovers things. His use of synthetic propositions (the synthetic a priori) is that which is innate to our way of thinking, and it helps unlock or allows for the creative mind to achieve new awareness about existing things (abstract/metaphysical formulas that describe the universe and the things in it).
And so, if the true nature of a think-in-itself is an abstract metaphysical formula, what inferences can be made beyond the observation of that existing thing? Do all things have essences of some kind? What is your existence? Physical, metaphysical or both?
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 5:23 pmThere is next to zero logic in your theist insult.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 10:53 amSure! the OP speaks to something transcendent of pure reason as to the actual cause of an a-theist belief system. (You know, kind of like the thing-in-itself that caused Kant to consider writing the CPR... .) Which part are you loving, the emotion or the logic?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 8:24 amPure Passive aggressive, theism. Love it!3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 7:39 am
Alta!
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
The original stance was correct, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. For example I solved all contradictions.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 11:14 amAlta!Atla wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 9:32 amDrawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!
Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
Well, to your first point, you do have a way of knowing, you just don't realize it. Three quick analogies:
1. The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. ....But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites.[2]
2. Consider opposing ways of perceiving an object. And let's make use of abstract mathematics (the metaphysics of math) as the example. You may look at an object, and observe its structure by your senses of sight, touch, smell and so on. Aside from it's emergent properties, the material object has contained within itself an abstract formula of existence. It's essence, would be analogous to its mathematical formula that created it (i.e., a structural beam, bridge, etc.). Much like the dual-way of understanding (the laws of) gravity to avoid falling objects, perhaps the question for you might be, are there two ways of observing, sensing and experiencing the world? Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
3. Consider the concepts in logic of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Are both those things knowable? Are both required for apperception of a thing? And, what is the opposite of logical necessity?
4. Consider our the thing called wonderment that we use to discover things (which by itself is metaphysical and has little if any Darwinian survival advantages). Then consider how a physicist discovers things. His use of synthetic propositions (the synthetic a priori) is that which is innate to our way of thinking, and it helps unlock or allows for the creative mind to achieve new awareness about existing things (abstract/metaphysical formulas that describe the universe and the things in it).
And so, if the true nature of a think-in-itself is an abstract metaphysical formula, what inferences can be made beyond the observation of that existing thing? Do all things have essences of some kind? What is your existence? Physical, metaphysical or both?
The idea that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements, is nonsense.
The abstract is NOT the opposite of the concrete, that's nonsense. Abstract things are descriptions about the concrete things, ways of thinking about them. Emergent properties are abstract descriptions. An abstract formula can't contain anything, because it's just an abstract descritpion. They don't have essences and don't create things.
No. The only "duality" here is the dichotomoy of abstracta and concreta, in our thinking. There aren't literally two ways of experiencing the world. Essence is made up, it's just what existing things are like, essence doesn't exist by itself. And the whole thing has nothing to do with the thing-in-itself.Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Alta!Atla wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 11:38 amThe original stance was correct, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. For example I solved all contradictions.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 11:14 amAlta!Atla wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 9:32 amDrawing a parallel between essences and noumenon makes no sense to me. Saying that noumenon is beyond "understanding about all of existence" also makes little sense to me. Noumenon is simply that which is postulated to exist beyond the appearances, noumenon is unknowable. But we have zero reason to believe that the noumenon has a different nature than the appearances.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 8:07 am Alta!
Sure. One can think of essences as in Kant's metaphysics postulating noumenon, which is basically that which is beyond understanding about all of existence (aka: existing things-in-themselves). That is to say it brings us back the definition of metaphysics itself, including the true nature of existence/reality. And that true nature/reality, refers to essence's. ...
It makes no sense to me to say that essences are always beyond that which is directly knowable. It makes no sense to me to say that essences have to do with the true nature of existence. Essences are simply what things are like. We arguably can't get more fundamental than that, but still, why would that be the true nature? Why would there even be a true nature?
Well, to your first point, you do have a way of knowing, you just don't realize it. Three quick analogies:
1. The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. ....But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations. The old metaphysic, as we have already seen, when it studied the objects of which it sought a metaphysical knowledge, went to work by applying categories abstractly and to the exclusion of their opposites.[2]
2. Consider opposing ways of perceiving an object. And let's make use of abstract mathematics (the metaphysics of math) as the example. You may look at an object, and observe its structure by your senses of sight, touch, smell and so on. Aside from it's emergent properties, the material object has contained within itself an abstract formula of existence. It's essence, would be analogous to its mathematical formula that created it (i.e., a structural beam, bridge, etc.). Much like the dual-way of understanding (the laws of) gravity to avoid falling objects, perhaps the question for you might be, are there two ways of observing, sensing and experiencing the world? Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
3. Consider the concepts in logic of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Are both those things knowable? Are both required for apperception of a thing? And, what is the opposite of logical necessity?
4. Consider our the thing called wonderment that we use to discover things (which by itself is metaphysical and has little if any Darwinian survival advantages). Then consider how a physicist discovers things. His use of synthetic propositions (the synthetic a priori) is that which is innate to our way of thinking, and it helps unlock or allows for the creative mind to achieve new awareness about existing things (abstract/metaphysical formulas that describe the universe and the things in it).
And so, if the true nature of a think-in-itself is an abstract metaphysical formula, what inferences can be made beyond the observation of that existing thing? Do all things have essences of some kind? What is your existence? Physical, metaphysical or both?
The idea that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements, is nonsense.
The abstract is NOT the opposite of the concrete, that's nonsense. Abstract things are descriptions about the concrete things, ways of thinking about them. Emergent properties are abstract descriptions. An abstract formula can't contain anything, because it's just an abstract descritpion. They don't have essences and don't create things.
No. The only "duality" here is the dichotomoy of abstracta and concreta, in our thinking. There aren't literally two ways of experiencing the world. Essence is made up, it's just what existing things are like, essence doesn't exist by itself. And the whole thing has nothing to do with the thing-in-itself.Could these dual-ways be akin to the essence v. existence of a thing-in-itself?
Interesting! Well, if you are correct, we must parse, then, your supposition (s). Are you saying that one's subjective truth precedes (or enjoys primacy over) one's objective truth? Please provide clarification, if you can.
And your second point is even more intriguing (not to mention troubling):
1. Are you now saying "essence doesn't exist by itself"? What, then, coincides or is the opposite of essence?
2. Support your supposition that there is only one way to know something, if you can? One can know about gravity in two ways, no?
3. If our thinking is incapable of integrating duality, does that make us a dualist in our epistemology? Could that be analogous to emotion and logic?
Please feel free to elucidate what you are trying to argue for...
In the meantime, you may/may not benefit from the basics:
Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force. For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.
More questions for Alta:
1. During cognition, does the Will precede the intellect or the opposite? And/or is it a little of both mixed together (emotion/logic being insoluble)?
2. If, as you say an abstract formula can't contain anything, what about the qualities of consciousness? Aren't some of them abstract?
3. Abstract means not having concrete or physical existence. Is the Will to be, physical or abstract? How about other emotive things-in-themselves from conscious existence?
Finally, this may/may not have more meaning (assuming you are an a-theist, which is totally fine); isn't the opposite of a-theism, theism? If not, how does an a-theist cognize their belief system? What is it based upon? And if it's not based upon theism, what word better captures that explanation/description?
― Albert Einstein
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Mr Spock won't help you here.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 11:32 am
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 1:20 pmMr Spock won't help you here.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 11:32 am
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.
Hence:
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
What do you mean by one's objective truth? What we treat as if it were objective, like in science?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 1:02 pmAlta!
Interesting! Well, if you are correct, we must parse, then, your supposition (s). Are you saying that one's subjective truth precedes (or enjoys primacy over) one's objective truth? Please provide clarification, if you can.
What is the difference between the red quale and the essence of the red quale? There is none, they are one and the same thing said twice. Same goes for something more complicated, like a car.1. Are you now saying "essence doesn't exist by itself"? What, then, coincides or is the opposite of essence?
Same goes for everything else, the existence vs. essence duality makes no sense.
Knowing gravity "abstractly" and knowing gravity "concretely" are just two different forms of human thinking/perception, that may happen in different parts of the human brain/mind.2. Support your supposition that there is only one way to know something, if you can? One can know about gravity in two ways, no?
Human thinking, especially Western male human thinking, is more like inherently dualistic. It's much harder to integrate non-duality, perhaps impossible.3. If our thinking is incapable of integrating duality, does that make us a dualist in our epistemology? Could that be analogous to emotion and logic?
Unity or identity of opposites is a realization about how human thinking works. Human thinking is always relative. What we then have to realize is that reality itself does NOT work like that. Looks like the above philosophy did the exact opposite?Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force. For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.
Emotion/logic being insoluble, are we strictly talking about male minds, with mostly independent hemispheres?1. During cognition, does the Will precede the intellect or the opposite? And/or is it a little of both mixed together (emotion/logic being insoluble)?
I'm not sure either what will and intellect mean exactly here. "Will" as in a manifestation of self-awareness? It's all pretty fuzzy but I'd say the self-awareness is there even without the intellect, and can take shape for example through the intellect.
Excluding those people who lack self-awareness ("will") of course, I guess those only have intellect.
There are no qualities that are literally abstract, there is only abstract thinking.2. If, as you say an abstract formula can't contain anything, what about the qualities of consciousness? Aren't some of them abstract?
Abstract thoughts themselves also have physical existence, but what they are "about", "abstract objects", do not.3. Abstract means not having concrete or physical existence. Is the Will to be, physical or abstract? How about other emotive things-in-themselves from conscious existence?
The "will to be" sounds more like the survival instinct, that's not abstract. The will as in self-awareness taking shape, is I'd say typically abstract above 110 IQ. (abstract entity, abstract "I") 110-100 is a grey zone, below 100 people usually seem to have more concrete "I"s, fueled by the lingering self-awareness, but it's not really taking abstract shape.
I don't know what emotive things-in-themselves are.
Atheists have no positive belief in the existence of God/gods, I think that's all.Finally, this may/may not have more meaning (assuming you are an a-theist, which is totally fine); isn't the opposite of a-theism, theism? If not, how does an a-theist cognize their belief system? What is it based upon? And if it's not based upon theism, what word better captures that explanation/description?
Strong atheists believe that there certainly is no God, weak atheists think there is (probably) no God but a negative can't be proven.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 1:28 pmSure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 1:20 pmMr Spock won't help you here.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 15th, 2022, 11:32 am
Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.
Case closed.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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