Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Posted: September 19th, 2019, 8:35 pm
No. Are you?
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6
No. Are you?
I was using the word "enchantment" in its literal sense, not metaphorical.Belindi wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 4:34 am Consul, I always mean a-temporally eternal when I say 'eternal'. I say everlasting when I mean everlasting. This is mainly because there is no need to think of eternity and time as mutually exclusive. There is much practical benefit from thinking of eternity and time as alternative aspects of being.
There may be many more aspects of being other than eternity and time although we can't know them; so many, infinitely many, that GaryLouisSmith need not be be alarmed at the scientific enlightenment banishing mystery and enchantment.
I suppose that must be enjoyable.Is it healthy?I was using the word "enchantment" in its literal sense, not metaphorical.
In order for the sacrifice to be effective the victim must give his consent by shuddering when wine is poured into his ear.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 9:42 amIn order for the sacrifice to be effective the victim must give his consent by shuddering when wine is poured into his ear.
I'm saying it's deadly, but extremely pleasurable. Please notice that I am here dealing in dreams and the trance of shopping. One cannot be precise and have exact definitions about such things. I am not a Cartesian Rationalist. If you want a clear and distinct definition of what is going on consult Consul. He will give you 36 different definitions. Also notice that because I bring in shopping I have aligned myself with Pop Art, which glorifies the commercial. It was Andy Warhol who brought all those commercial (mercurial) things into the Realm of Eternal Forms. Soup Cans, Coke Bottles, Brillo Bottles. I love Andy Warhol. Old style artists hate him. (Be aware that one cannot exactly define "eternal" in such a dream/trance vision. Everything is indeterminate, generic and artificial and above all cookie-cutter repetitious. All boys are the same Boy.
There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different. Naturalists might live in a world where Nature is the one Thing that all things are within. Atheists live in a world in which there is no God. In some worlds the laws of logic are different from what they are in others. This world I live in, the world I describe in my philosophy, is a world in which a minority of people live. A minority of a minority. No doubt a minority of a minority of a minority. The great majority of people would not want to live in my world. I have no objections. Good riddance. (Few gay people would want my world.)
A Weltanschauung (worldview) isn't a Welt (world). We all live in the same one world, but we don't all have the same one worldview (world-representation) in our minds.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pmThere is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different.
I think it isn't just a different worldview, but it is a different world. Or you could say that worldviews are all there is and there is no one world beyond them. This has nothing to do with physics. Still, I know that you like the idea of one substance beyond all its attributes, so that's your world.Consul wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 11:06 pmA Weltanschauung (worldview) isn't a Welt (world). We all live in the same one world, but we don't all have the same one worldview (world-representation) in our minds.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pmThere is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different.
(Whether ontological realism about possible worlds other than the actual one is true is another question.)
There is something analogous to your substance-attribute distinction in my philosophy. I have the one generic Form beyond its many appearances. Still a Form is not a substance, at least not an Aristotelian substance. And an appearance is not an attribute.Consul wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 11:06 pmA Weltanschauung (worldview) isn't a Welt (world). We all live in the same one world, but we don't all have the same one worldview (world-representation) in our minds.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pmThere is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different.
(Whether ontological realism about possible worlds other than the actual one is true is another question.)
I thought The Mists of Avalon managed to describe and intregrate a separation of worlds quite well in the narrative.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pm As for those of you who believe we all live in one world and there is one universal philosophy that describes it, think again.
Thanks for mentioning that. I really know nothing about fiction or such books as that, so I cannot comment. I am not so much interested in integration as how to live the separation.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑September 21st, 2019, 6:13 amI thought The Mists of Avalon managed to describe and intregrate a separation of worlds quite well in the narrative.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pm As for those of you who believe we all live in one world and there is one universal philosophy that describes it, think again.
" What is the Eternal Form of Beyond beyond all its many definitions? "So is there one Great Meaning beyond all those sub-meanings? I use the word “beyond”. I say that the Eternal Form is beyond its appearance as this or that. What is the Eternal Form of Beyond beyond all its many definitions? As I write about the Forms (with a capital F) they are rather dreamy and indeterminate and vague. The Boy is more of a ghost that a clear presence before you. Or He is too too too clear and determinate. Either way He is different from the ordinary thing.