Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Orthos

Orthos
February 03, 2012, 04:39:33 PM
Quote
I think the founding idea of the orthosphere can be fairly oversimplified into this sentence: “The problem with the modern world is modernity itself”. For the orthos, the philosophical core of modernity is the rejection of the Aristotelian-Catholic idea that there are objective essences and purposes in the world. Many of the orthos trace this idea back to the nominalism of late-Medieval scholastics like William of Ockham, although they would also argue that it did not culminate until the 18th century and the Enlightenment. In philosophy, this modern nominalism gave rise to the idea that the world consists of nothing but meaningless, purposeless matter, and thence to modern atheism, materialism, relativism, and finally the complete nihilism which today is increasingly engulfing America and Europe.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4904

Quote
Nominalism comes in at least two varieties. In one of them it is the rejection of abstract objects; in the other it is the rejection of universals. Philosophers have often found it necessary to postulate either abstract objects or universals. And so Nominalism in one form or another has played a significant role in the metaphysical debate since at least the Middle Ages, when versions of the second variety of Nominalism were introduced. The two varieties of Nominalism are independent from each other and either can be consistently held without the other. However both varieties share some common motivations and arguments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

In other words, we're back to the dualistic split. There are two types of existence we identify:

(1) Matter
(2) Thought, or thought-correlative, patterns

Plato said that #2 was the blueprint or cause, and #1 the instance or effect.

Many moderns would argue that #2 is enclosed in #1, e.g. thought-like things only occur in biological brains

Still no one is sure how the universe created itself

Re: Orthos
February 03, 2012, 06:02:45 PM
The very idea that anyone could ever be 'sure' how the universe created itself, seems absurd to me.
Why would anyone want to know, anyway? What would be the point?
The universe is.

The less I know, the better I feel.

Phoenix

Re: Orthos
February 03, 2012, 06:39:39 PM
The very idea that anyone could ever be 'sure' how the universe created itself, seems absurd to me.
Why would anyone want to know, anyway? What would be the point?
The universe is.

The less I know, the better I feel.


The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

I would say the point of knowing the nature of the universe is to survive, to be in good health and spirit, to see more possibilities and be free, and to make sure you strive for these things in a sustainable way. Also, examining how the universe works can help debunk false, misguiding conclusions about it.

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 03:19:55 PM
The very idea that anyone could ever be 'sure' how the universe created itself, seems absurd to me.
Why would anyone want to know, anyway? What would be the point?
The universe is.

The less I know, the better I feel.


ditto

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
The very idea that anyone could ever be 'sure' how the universe created itself, seems absurd to me.
Why would anyone want to know, anyway? What would be the point?
The universe is.

The less I know, the better I feel.


ditto

I can't agree here. The nature of how the universe came into being has bearing on other questions we will find a need to answer. It constructs the shape of the argument, for lack of a better term. In addition, we are human: we will seek knowledge even if it's the death of us, and that is one of our most redeemable traits (the other is our propensity for inventing delicious snack foods).

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 05:01:51 PM
The very idea that anyone could ever be 'sure' how the universe created itself, seems absurd to me.
Why would anyone want to know, anyway? What would be the point?
The universe is.

The less I know, the better I feel.


ditto

I can't agree here. The nature of how the universe came into being has bearing on other questions we will find a need to answer. It constructs the shape of the argument, for lack of a better term. In addition, we are human: we will seek knowledge even if it's the death of us, and that is one of our most redeemable traits (the other is our propensity for inventing delicious snack foods).
I respect that for sure, but let me take this further.  What we are talking about is whether or not we SHOULD try to figure out how the universe created itself.  In that sense I agree and I do think we should TRY no matter what.  As Jean Baudrillard says, the ultimate philosophical question is:  why is there something and not nothing? 

However, a better question is CAN we figure out how the universe created itself?

I will go to my grave believing that we cannot.  I'm not saying we shouldn't try to figure it out, I'm just wagering on the fact that we will not be able to figure it out no matter if it is 100 years from now or 10,000.  But just because we think a quest will ultimately come up empty is no reason to abandon it in my opinion.  In that sense I think it is a worthy quest.

But think about it.  Won't we always be able to ask the question:  why X? 

The universe was created by the Big Bang.  Well, why did the Big Bang happen?  Because X.  Well, why X?  I believe Lewis Carroll hit on this to some extent in his thought experiment, What the Tortoise said to Achilles

At the end of the day, this is why I will always love religion.  If you ask me, the idea that the Universe spontaneously came into existence out of nothing is an even flimsier idea than the idea that God created it.

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 06:19:15 PM
If you ask me, the idea that the Universe spontaneously came into existence out of nothing is an even flimsier idea than the idea that God created it.

Are the two that opposite?

If God permeates all consciousness and being, how is the universe not both product of God and his being?

If God is not anthropomorphic and personalitied, how is he not an animistic / pantheistic existence?

In that case, it makes sense that the universe = God and created itself.

From a monist perspective -- the only sensible one -- the universe is either all matter (and then how did it begin?) or all thought, with matter being a consequence of that thought.

Even more, monism would posit that matter as a subset of existence creates with it time, which means that on some level there are no beginnings and endings -- only the thoughts of a universe creating itself, or a God developing itself, or a God creating a universe of itself so that it can discover itself through the mechanism of "consciousness," which is time-dependent but capable of analysis as a result, where an all-knowing thing is limited by the fact that it cannot know -- it can only Be.

Food for thought. Producing flatulence for fear.

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 06:55:52 PM
Are you confusing 'consciousness' with 'thought'?
Equating the two?
It has been shown, as I understand it, that sub atomic particles exhibit consciousness.
It seems a bit of a stretch to assume that they also 'think'.
My own experience of consciousness is that it occurs when thought is suspended.
The two are very different.
I become, with practice, and familiarity, ever more conscious.
While noticing that I think less and less.
In fact the only time I am aware of thinking is when solving problems.
Thus I feel no need whatsoever, to discover, with certainty, how, or why, the universe came into being.
Indeed, I know this is something 'I' can never know.
While understanding completely, at the same time, that this knowledge is known, as a matter of course, somewhere, somehow, by something.
The scriptural tree of knowledge, in the Garden of Eden, contains this sort of knowledge.
One may visit and know. But one may not eat of its fruit.
Knowledge, you see, is poison (:>

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 10:19:19 PM
If you ask me, the idea that the Universe spontaneously came into existence out of nothing is an even flimsier idea than the idea that God created it.

Are the two that opposite?

True, true.  I should rather say that it is AS flimsy.  Or even better, I should say that both notions are equally sturdy, substantial, and fundamental.

Re: Orthos
February 04, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Are the two that opposite?

No, they're not. God created the universe ex nihilo, as nothing that is in the universe did not receive its being from God, since being predicates the attributes of all things which have being.

Quote
If God permeates all consciousness and being, how is the universe not both product of God and his being?

Creation is certainly a product of its Creator, but it is not the being of the Creator. The being of God is self-subsistent, unqualified, and atemporal (all qualities which actually collapse into one another in the actus purus that is God). Created being is received being, and God both gives things their being at their creation and holds them in being from moment to moment.

Quote
If God is not anthropomorphic and personalitied, how is he not an animistic / pantheistic existence?

Because God is both immanent and transcendent. His Essence transcends comprehension, as It is the Confluence of all actuality; in other words It is the perfectly Being all that any particular thing that exists can be. We recognize that things really are things in any given present instance, but that they are subject to mutability over a series of those present instances. That thing cannot be all the things it has, may, or will be at once, but we don't want to come to the wrong conclusion that the change exists and the thing doesn't as a result. That conclusion leads us down the road to many errors, such as relativism and dualism, for the road to Hell is wide. If we could imagine what any given thing could be if it was all that it can be, we would conclude that its most perfect being would be unqualified Being. A conclusion of this line of thought is that since all processes in time are the process of things moving to an actual form that was implied by the actual form's prior potential form, the end that all things move towards is pure Actualization, and thus the end of all things is God. This also means that God is Good in Itself, since good is defined (as per Aristotle) as 'that at which all things aim'.

Quote
In that case, it makes sense that the universe = God and created itself.

Not quite. Panentheism (God pervades and transcends the cosmos) makes a lot more sense than pantheism (God's Being is the being of the cosmos), because pantheism is a really shaky basis for morality. Build your house on sand, the apparent mutability of the world, and it will fall with a great crash; build your house on a rock, the principles by which that mutability is actualized, and you will glorify those principles and as a result the world through your understanding.

Quote
From a monist perspective -- the only sensible one -- the universe is either all matter (and then how did it begin?) or all thought, with matter being a consequence of that thought.

The second part of your statement is partially true, but one would have to understand what thought in this context is. As you said above, God (the Father), is NOT an anthropomorphic entity.

Quote
Even more, monism would posit that matter as a subset of existence creates with it time, which means that on some level there are no beginnings and endings -- only the thoughts of a universe creating itself, or a God developing itself, or a God creating a universe of itself so that it can discover itself through the mechanism of "consciousness," which is time-dependent but capable of analysis as a result, where an all-knowing thing is limited by the fact that it cannot know -- it can only Be.

For the most part that is profound and correct. As nothing that has being contains anything that God did not give to it, then God is aware of the entire spectrum of potential forms for any given thing. This isn't really predestination, but more so a continuous act of unfolding eternity. From the atemporal perspective, the realization of this eternity is always complete, but from the temporal perspective the clash of beings actualizing creates the impression of linear time. At some point, obviously, that which cannot persist is going to be burned away and what will remain will be more perfectly actualized than what preceded it.

Quote
Food for thought. Producing flatulence for fear.

Clever.

Re: Orthos
February 14, 2012, 10:53:07 PM
Are the two that opposite?

No, they're not. God created the universe ex nihilo, as nothing that is in the universe did not receive its being from God, since being predicates the attributes of all things which have being.


I remember in my initial foray into Vedanta coming across an explanation of how something can come from nothing.  They used the metaphor of a wet dream.  Arousal happens entirely in the sleeping mind but when you wake up, there is the physical result.

So maybe the universe is simply God's ejaculate.

Re: Orthos
February 15, 2012, 04:06:06 PM
Quote
So maybe the universe is simply God's ejaculate.

This would explain investment bankers and lawyers.

Re: Orthos
February 15, 2012, 04:09:18 PM
Are the two that opposite?

No, they're not. God created the universe ex nihilo, as nothing that is in the universe did not receive its being from God, since being predicates the attributes of all things which have being.


I remember in my initial foray into Vedanta coming across an explanation of how something can come from nothing.  They used the metaphor of a wet dream.  Arousal happens entirely in the sleeping mind but when you wake up, there is the physical result.

So maybe the universe is simply God's ejaculate.

That's actually not an entirely bad metaphor, although it serves little utility other than to be amusing.

Re: Orthos
February 16, 2012, 03:34:10 AM
But what if that wet dream involves another man?

Re: Orthos
February 16, 2012, 07:47:49 AM
What is a creation if it is not an ejaculation (in the broadest sense)

But what if that wet dream involves another man?

It's a creation that goes nowhere. It only remains in the sensual world. It's no wonders that gay becames the synonym of homosexuality.The first meaning of being gay, is being frivolous, it's pleasure without spirituality or true meaning. It's a mean in itself instead of a mean to an end. I don't think it's far fetched to say that if you have heterosexual sex but that it's only on a sensual level, you are gay.

The flesh that "touch" the spirit = different = Hetero : Heterosexual.
The flesh that touch the flesh = Homo = Similar: homosexual