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

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Athanasius contra mundum

1 [2] 3 ... 18
Interzone / Re: Christianity and saving the West from itself
« on: January 12, 2012, 02:00:16 AM »
Or leave it to Aristotle, who pretty much irrefutably proved monotheism in his Metaphysics.

Interzone / Re: (Moral) Transhumanism
« on: January 10, 2012, 04:54:26 AM »
Remarkably similar to the case for psychoactive medication, and my issue with it is also similar. Drugging the opposition into agreement is a very under-handed method of advocating the dominance of one's moral philosophy.

Interzone / Re: Quantum entanglement
« on: January 06, 2012, 09:57:57 AM »
All of this reality is illusory talk seems to betray the principle of contradiction to me.

Interzone / Re: The good life
« on: January 06, 2012, 05:43:34 AM »
Of note for cunning linguists:

Etymologically, it consists of the words "eu" ("good") and "daimōn" (a type of supernatural being).

The highest goal in life is unification with the confluence of all perfection, which is all actuality, i.e. theosis

Interzone / Re: Jewish prophet taking over world
« on: December 28, 2011, 07:39:08 PM »
That's why we need to re-paganize it and instill a sense of adventure and animism.

Which one of the existing Christian traditions is closest to this?

I'm out of my depth on that one. I would guess Catholics, then Episcopalians, then Lutherans. The latter seem especially sanguine. Catholicism seems baffling to me. If they don't do the mass in Latin, I ain't going. (Well, I'm not going anyway; I'm a Vedantist, and we have our own rituals, which involve pig rectum and a lot of butter.)

How do you feel about Orthodoxy, as in the Eastern Orthodox Church? I'm part of that tradition.

I feel that liberalism isn't just apparent in several very prominent and easily identified organizations, or popular values or ideas, but even in the most fundamental aspects by which even the most anti-liberal person defines themselves. When the enemy has intertwined itself within society to such an extent, you are bound to see manifestations of its presence absolutely everywhere.

Christianity seemed to bring problems, and will need reforming to avoid those problems, but it obviously isn't the cause. Democracy blighted ancient Athens and the ancient Hindu civilizations as well, and something caused Angkor Wat to collapse from within. I doubt it's as simple as blaming Christians or Jews. I think it's something closer to the inner failings of the human soul. It is not a darkness -- true evil is highly religious and thus an affirmer of morality, hail Satan -- but an inner lack of power or clarity.

That being said, can you explicated the quoted material above? I think it's a companion point to what I posted and should get more not less exploration.

There are several topics to discuss here. I could name some prominent features of the dominance of liberalism, but I don't feel that such things even brush the entire depth of the topic. Evola often discusses the inability of the modern person to understand the psychological make-up of past civilizations, because we define ourselves by entirely different terms. In other words he is saying that there are thoughts and emotions that individuals in the past experienced that we have not experienced, and as a result it is difficult for us to be able to understand ancient forms of ritual and governance. Our ideas of what the nature of a person is, and what the nature of an action is, have significantly changed. Part of the issue with debating liberals is that all too often we allow them to frame the topic of a debate and pull an elaborate strawman on us by claiming that our methods are faultly since they do not result in maximum autonomy for the individual; they often use very different terms than the ones I have used, but the goal of their methods is obviously implied. The strange thing is, conservatives fall into this trap almost every time. Instead of being brave and denying liberal values, including the idea that methods are only justified by resulting in autonomy for the individual, they try to argue with the liberal about how their methods do result in those things.

Interzone / Re: Liberalism and Protestantism connections
« on: December 28, 2011, 07:17:07 PM »
I'm still sticking with the Aristotlian definition of evil, which is far different than the dualistic perspective contended by this website.

Prostestantism is not the source of liberalism, but I do feel that it is the source of many modern liberal ideas, at least in the form they take today. I think you can somewhat point to the modern conduits for liberalism as based upon Protestant 'revolutions' in thought: two kingdoms theology, sola scriptura, sola fida (especially!), personal devotion, and things of that nature.

Interzone / Re: Nothingness after death - As uncertain as afterlife
« on: December 28, 2011, 07:13:37 PM »
What this site has always crusaded against is dualism, which is a broken logical system. Another world, where the rules aren't the same? Oh great -- that puts us into magical conjectural territory.

Thus the origin behind my username. Dualism is the philosophy of the Gnostic heresy, and is essentially a denial of goodness within the world. Like Aristotle, however, I feel that people such as Plato and Plotinus carried some remnants of this dualistic thought, although more faintly than conscious advocates of it.

Interzone / Re: Nothingness after death - As uncertain as afterlife
« on: December 27, 2011, 08:06:15 PM »
What does one transcend to from omnipotence? If you widen the frame, the essence fills the gap; it remains omnipotence. The infinite can infinitely transcend, or rather, transcendance is a meaningless concept when applied to infinity. It's not like there's a barrier labelled "infinity" somewhere right?

I'm saying omnipotence is an extreme quality, you can't have degrees of it, you either have it or you don't. Like the adage 'nothing finite exists apart from the infinite'. It's true it's a rather meaningless concept, a deity could still be very powerful, just not infinitely so. Initially some posts back I raised this question to determine a priori the nature of reality: in this sense, what I think is important is to understand god ≠ infinity. As infinity is indeed a meaningless concept, I find it harmful how some people hear god is supposed to be omnipotent and then immediately make the leap to a belief in infinity aka god. The only thin the concept of infinity as it pertains to a deity is good for is to suck people into illogical scenarios. The concept has a tendency to rationalize facts away, or even to stop questions from being asked in the first place as if god does all and he works in mysterious ways. If we live in a finite, logical universe we understand god can't always choose any scenario whatsoever to occur, and we can have faith in the rigor of our logic to help explain things.

A thoughtful response from a thoughtful person...

Question 7. The infinity of God
I. Is God infinite?
II. Is anything besides Him infinite in essence?
III. Can anything be infinite in magnitude?
IV. Can an infinite multitude exist?

Article 1. Whether God is infinite?

Objection 1. It seems that God is not infinite. For everything infinite is imperfect, as the Philosopher says; because it has parts and matter, as is said in Phys. iii. But God is most perfect; therefore He is not infinite.

Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. i), finite and infinite belong to quantity. But there is no quantity in God, for He is not a body, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 1). Therefore it does not belong to Him to be infinite.

Objection 3. Further, what is here in such a way as not to be elsewhere, is finite according to place. Therefore that which is a thing in such a way as not to be another thing, is finite according to substance. But God is this, and not another; for He is not a stone or wood. Therefore God is not infinite in substance.

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4) that "God is infinite and eternal, and boundless."

I answer that, All the ancient philosophers attribute infinitude to the first principle, as is said (Phys. iii), and with reason; for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity; forasmuch as they asserted that matter was the first principle; consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things.

We must consider therefore that a thing is called infinite because it is not finite. Now matter is in a way made finite by form, and the form by matter. Matter indeed is made finite by form, inasmuch as matter, before it receives its form, is in potentiality to many forms; but on receiving a form, it is terminated by that one. Again, form is made finite by matter, inasmuch as form, considered in itself, is common to many; but when received in matter, the form is determined to this one particular thing. Now matter is perfected by the form by which it is made finite; therefore infinite as attributed to matter, has the nature of something imperfect; for it is as it were formless matter. On the other hand, form is not made perfect by matter, but rather is contracted by matter; and hence the infinite, regarded on the part of the form not determined by matter, has the nature of something perfect. Now being is the most formal of all things, as appears from what is shown above (4, 1, Objection 3). Since therefore the divine being is not a being received in anything, but He is His own subsistent being as was shown above (Question 3, Article 4), it is clear that God Himself is infinite and perfect.

From this appears the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply to Objection 2. Quantity is terminated by its form, which can be seen in the fact that a figure which consists in quantity terminated, is a kind of quantitative form. Hence the infinite of quantity is the infinite of matter; such a kind of infinite cannot be attributed to God; as was said above, in this article.

Reply to Objection 3. The fact that the being of God is self-subsisting, not received in any other, and is thus called infinite, shows Him to be distinguished from all other beings, and all others to be apart from Him. Even so, were there such a thing as a self-subsisting whiteness, the very fact that it did not exist in anything else, would make it distinct from every other whiteness existing in a subject.

Article 2. Whether anything but God can be essentially infinite?

Objection 1. It seems that something else besides God can be essentially infinite. For the power of anything is proportioned to its essence. Now if the essence of God is infinite, His power must also be infinite. Therefore He can produce an infinite effect, since the extent of a power is known by its effect.

Objection 2. Further, whatever has infinite power, has an infinite essence. Now the created intellect has an infinite power; for it apprehends the universal, which can extend itself to an infinitude of singular things. Therefore every created intellectual substance is infinite.

Objection 3. Further, primary matter is something other than God, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 8). But primary matter is infinite. Therefore something besides God can be infinite.

On the contrary, The infinite cannot have a beginning, as said in Phys. iii. But everything outside God is from God as from its first principle. Therefore besides God nothing can be infinite.

I answer that, Things other than God can be relatively infinite, but not absolutely infinite. For with regard to infinite as applied to matter, it is manifest that everything actually existing possesses a form; and thus its matter is determined by form. But because matter, considered as existing under some substantial form, remains in potentiality to many accidental forms, which is absolutely finite can be relatively infinite; as, for example, wood is finite according to its own form, but still it is relatively infinite, inasmuch as it is in potentiality to an infinite number of shapes. But if we speak of the infinite in reference to form, it is manifest that those things, the forms of which are in matter, are absolutely finite, and in no way infinite. If, however, any created forms are not received into matter, but are self-subsisting, as some think is the case with angels, these will be relatively infinite, inasmuch as such kinds of forms are not terminated, nor contracted by any matter. But because a created form thus subsisting has being, and yet is not its own being, it follows that its being is received and contracted to a determinate nature. Hence it cannot be absolutely infinite.

Reply to Objection 1. It is against the nature of a made thing for its essence to be its existence; because subsisting being is not a created being; hence it is against the nature of a made thing to be absolutely infinite. Therefore, as God, although He has infinite power, cannot make a thing to be not made (for this would imply that two contradictories are true at the same time), so likewise He cannot make anything to be absolutely infinite.

Reply to Objection 2. The fact that the power of the intellect extends itself in a way to infinite things, is because the intellect is a form not in matter, but either wholly separated from matter, as is the angelic substance, or at least an intellectual power, which is not the act of any organ, in the intellectual soul joined to a body.

Reply to Objection 3. Primary matter does not exist by itself in nature, since it is not actually being, but potentially only; hence it is something concreated rather than created. Nevertheless, primary matter even as a potentiality is not absolutely infinite, but relatively, because its potentiality extends only to natural forms.

Article 3. Whether an actually infinite magnitude can exist?

Objection 1. It seems that there can be something actually infinite in magnitude. For in mathematics there is no error, since "there is no lie in things abstract," as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii). But mathematics uses the infinite in magnitude; thus, the geometrician in his demonstrations says, "Let this line be infinite." Therefore it is not impossible for a thing to be infinite in magnitude.

Objection 2. Further, what is not against the nature of anything, can agree with it. Now to be infinite is not against the nature of magnitude; but rather both the finite and the infinite seem to be properties of quantity. Therefore it is not impossible for some magnitude to be infinite.

Objection 3. Further, magnitude is infinitely divisible, for the continuous is defined that which is infinitely divisible, as is clear from Phys. iii. But contraries are concerned about one and the same thing. Since therefore addition is opposed to division, and increase opposed to diminution, it appears that magnitude can be increased to infinity. Therefore it is possible for magnitude to be infinite.

Objection 4. Further, movement and time have quantity and continuity derived from the magnitude over which movement passes, as is said in Phys. iv. But it is not against the nature of time and movement to be infinite, since every determinate indivisible in time and circular movement is both a beginning and an end. Therefore neither is it against the nature of magnitude to be infinite.

On the contrary, Every body has a surface. But every body which has a surface is finite; because surface is the term of a finite body. Therefore all bodies are finite. The same applies both to surface and to a line. Therefore nothing is infinite in magnitude.

I answer that, It is one thing to be infinite in essence, and another to be infinite in magnitude. For granted that a body exists infinite in magnitude, as fire or air, yet this could not be infinite in essence, because its essence would be terminated in a species by its form, and confined to individuality by matter. And so assuming from these premises that no creature is infinite in essence, it still remains to inquire whether any creature can be infinite in magnitude.

We must therefore observe that a body, which is a complete magnitude, can be considered in two ways; mathematically, in respect to its quantity only; and naturally, as regards its matter and form.

Now it is manifest that a natural body cannot be actually infinite. For every natural body has some determined substantial form. Since therefore the accidents follow upon the substantial form, it is necessary that determinate accidents should follow upon a determinate form; and among these accidents is quantity. So every natural body has a greater or smaller determinate quantity. Hence it is impossible for a natural body to be infinite. The same appears from movement; because every natural body has some natural movement; whereas an infinite body could not have any natural movement; neither direct, because nothing moves naturally by a direct movement unless it is out of its place; and this could not happen to an infinite body, for it would occupy every place, and thus every place would be indifferently its own place. Neither could it move circularly; forasmuch as circular motion requires that one part of the body is necessarily transferred to a place occupied by another part, and this could not happen as regards an infinite circular body: for if two lines be drawn from the centre, the farther they extend from the centre, the farther they are from each other; therefore, if a body were infinite, the lines would be infinitely distant from each other; and thus one could never occupy the place belonging to any other.

The same applies to a mathematical body. For if we imagine a mathematical body actually existing, we must imagine it under some form, because nothing is actual except by its form; hence, since the form of quantity as such is figure, such a body must have some figure, and so would be finite; for figure is confined by a term or boundary.

Reply to Objection 1. A geometrician does not need to assume a line actually infinite, but takes some actually finite line, from which he subtracts whatever he finds necessary; which line he calls infinite.

Reply to Objection 2. Although the infinite is not against the nature of magnitude in general, still it is against the nature of any species of it; thus, for instance, it is against the nature of a bicubical or tricubical magnitude, whether circular or triangular, and so on. Now what is not possible in any species cannot exist in the genus; hence there cannot be any infinite magnitude, since no species of magnitude is infinite.

Reply to Objection 3. The infinite in quantity, as was shown above, belongs to matter. Now by division of the whole we approach to matter, forasmuch as parts have the aspect of matter; but by addition we approach to the whole which has the aspect of a form. Therefore the infinite is not in the addition of magnitude, but only in division.

Reply to Objection 4. Movement and time are whole, not actually but successively; hence they have potentiality mixed with actuality. But magnitude is an actual whole; therefore the infinite in quantity refers to matter, and does not agree with the totality of magnitude; yet it agrees with the totality of time and movement: for it is proper to matter to be in potentiality.

Article 4. Whether an infinite multitude can exist?

Objection 1. It seems that an actually infinite multitude is possible. For it is not impossible for a potentiality to be made actual. But number can be multiplied to infinity. Therefore it is possible for an infinite multitude actually to exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is possible for any individual of any species to be made actual. But the species of figures are infinite. Therefore an infinite number of actual figures is possible.

Objection 3. Further, things not opposed to each other do not obstruct each other. But supposing a multitude of things to exist, there can still be many others not opposed to them. Therefore it is not impossible for others also to coexist with them, and so on to infinitude; therefore an actual infinite number of things is possible.

On the contrary, It is written, "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight" (Wisdom 11:21).

I answer that, A twofold opinion exists on this subject. Some, as Avicenna and Algazel, said that it was impossible for an actually infinite multitude to exist absolutely; but that an accidentally infinite multitude was not impossible. A multitude is said to be infinite absolutely, when an infinite multitude is necessary that something may exist. Now this is impossible; because it would entail something dependent on an infinity for its existence; and hence its generation could never come to be, because it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium.

A multitude is said to be accidentally infinite when its existence as such is not necessary, but accidental. This can be shown, for example, in the work of a carpenter requiring a certain absolute multitude; namely, art in the soul, the movement of the hand, and a hammer; and supposing that such things were infinitely multiplied, the carpentering work would never be finished, forasmuch as it would depend on an infinite number of causes. But the multitude of hammers, inasmuch as one may be broken and another used, is an accidental multitude; for it happens by accident that many hammers are used, and it matters little whether one or two, or many are used, or an infinite number, if the work is carried on for an infinite time. In this way they said that there can be an accidentally infinite multitude.

This, however, is impossible; since every kind of multitude must belong to a species of multitude. Now the species of multitude are to be reckoned by the species of numbers. But no species of number is infinite; for every number is multitude measured by one. Hence it is impossible for there to be an actually infinite multitude, either absolute or accidental. Likewise multitude in nature is created; and everything created is comprehended under some clear intention of the Creator; for no agent acts aimlessly. Hence everything created must be comprehended in a certain number. Therefore it is impossible for an actually infinite multitude to exist, even accidentally. But a potentially infinite multitude is possible; because the increase of multitude follows upon the division of magnitude; since the more a thing is divided, the greater number of things result. Hence, as the infinite is to be found potentially in the division of the continuous, because we thus approach matter, as was shown in the preceding article, by the same rule, the infinite can be also found potentially in the addition of multitude.

Reply to Objection 1. Every potentiality is made actual according to its mode of being; for instance, a day is reduced to act successively, and not all at once. Likewise the infinite in multitude is reduced to act successively, and not all at once; because every multitude can be succeeded by another multitude to infinity.

Reply to Objection 2. Species of figures are infinite by infinitude of number. Now there are various species of figures, such as trilateral, quadrilateral and so on; and as an infinitely numerable multitude is not all at once reduced to act, so neither is the multitude of figures.

Reply to Objection 3. Although the supposition of some things does not preclude the supposition of others, still the supposition of an infinite number is opposed to any single species of multitude. Hence it is not possible for an actually infinite multitude to exist. - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica [I:VII]

To understand this article one must be familiar with Aristotlian metaphysics, otherwise they are likely to make improper use of the terms potentiality, actuality, supposition and presupposition, predicate(d), and so forth.

Interzone / Re: Jewish prophet taking over world
« on: December 27, 2011, 08:01:08 PM »
If we're talking about reforming Christianity, we're talking about reforming the entire world. I think that certain articles on this website has hinted at this, but I feel that liberalism isn't just apparent in several very prominent and easily identified organizations, or popular values or ideas, but even in the most fundamental aspects by which even the most anti-liberal person defines themselves. When the enemy has intertwined itself within society to such an extent, you are bound to see manifestations of its presence absolutely everywhere.

And yes fallot, I do think it's important that the West realize it's Catholic heritage, which is also its metaphysical heritage (Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot more than the Summa Theologica).

"Lewis points to three supreme works that exemplify the Medieval mind as its highest expression.
The Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas.
The Divine Comedy by Dante.
The Model of the Universe.

For quite different reasons, viz., we don’t see them as merely a complex scheme of categorization, this fits in with our entire perspective.
The Summa is the supreme work of Western metaphysics, or Theology, as a manifestation of the Idea of Truth.
The Divine Comedy is the highest poetic work, as the manifestation of the Idea of Beauty. The “elaborate code of Love” is not what Lewis thinks it is. Rather, it reveals the path of Initiation culminating in the knowledge of the Divine Sophia.
We have referred to the Model of the Universe on several occasions." - Cologero of Gornahoor.net, An Old Model of the Universe, http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=3545

We Westerners have much to be proud of, and we seem to want to throw all of that into the dust bin.

Interzone / Re: Porn stars - Do you respect them?
« on: December 19, 2011, 05:03:21 PM »
Hedonism is enslavement, not freedom.

Interzone / Re: What creeps me out about Christians
« on: December 18, 2011, 03:46:25 AM »
To say that God is love is the same to say that He is all-knowing, or all-powerful; it's an ontological statement and not a direct, and thus impractically abstract one. God is love in the sense that he has a perfect aesthetic sense. Keep in mind that what is aesthetic appreciation for something depends upon its particularized teleology. It doesn't mean that God thinks you're awesome no matter what kind of person you are, this is an obvious contradiction, and an unfortunate error of many modern Christians.

Interzone / Re: Visions of evil
« on: December 18, 2011, 03:44:44 AM »
What is natural to a being and the desires of a crowd that has fallen to its lowest common denominator impulses in order to be a crowd are two different things.

Certainly so, I don't think anyone would ever deny this. This is why a good Catholic defines goodness by what is natural to a being, and not by some liberal abstract standard which they then demand everyone adhere to by rectifying 'injustices'.

Interzone / Re: What creeps me out about Christians
« on: December 17, 2011, 09:20:44 PM »
That seems to imply that you think anyone who defends Christianity is wrong on principle, but perhaps you're only referring to nous' aggressive proselytism. Still, my point stands that you cannot define Christianity solely by its negative exponents, if you could even consider such exponents properly Christian.

Interzone / Re: ✠
« on: December 17, 2011, 09:14:57 PM »
I don't like Jesus. He's a whiny hipster. His occasional good points (the parable of the talents) are drowned out in a sea of drama. In fact, what has kept me away from Christianity for most of my life, and made me hate it virulently, is the entire Christ story. It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people. It is sappy, fundamentally Middle Eastern in its "show tunes" quality of saccharine and yet manipulative pandering, and utterly useless but for one thing: day laborer Jesus tells his tormentors that he is not afraid of death, and he will do what is right, "regardless." That alone is beautiful. It is made less beautiful by the talk of assured immortality. As a nihilist, I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light. To me, that is the essential challenge of life.

I do not believe the goal should be God or Christianity. Rather, it should be the divine order of the cosmos, of which Christianity is one interpretation. Any other view is prone to human fallacy. The point should be underscored, however, that a caste system exists and most of us lack validity in any criticism of our religious leaders. We are not all equal. Only the ones at the top really count. And this should be hammered home into their tinny thin little skulls.

I agree we have to point the finger at everything in modern society today. And what is its origin? 1789, and before that, a gradual process of liberalization which Christianity did not stop.

If I were to accept Christianity, it would have to be Pagan, which is to say, adding Satan to the pantheon. Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability. Nothing gold can stay. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Without the resurrection, the sacrifice of the Mass, and thus the entire ritual binding of the Catholic Faith would not be possible. No one is going to feel it necessary to subsume themselves into a traditional, sacred form if they feel they can put them on or take them off like they do with their favorite clothing. Through moral consensus, as is reached in the Faith, we are able to impart character and thus positive achievement upon society. Your criticisms of the resurrection are frankly trite. Firstly, the claim that the meek shall inherit the earth is an exhortation to betterment of oneself. It is the weak who need to be pushed, not the strong. The strong should instead be focused on how to best organize the weak in order to cultivate strength in said weaklings; thus the entire ethos of pity that you denigrate without any serious consideration. Remember, Christ also said 'be perfect as your Father is perfect'. Perfect here means far more than the common perspective of never doing wrong, as Aquinas goes into intense detail to demonstrate. It is also good to remember, as Chesterton said, that one should be the most healthy kind of patriot of the cosmos: that is a patriot who is both unwilling to refuse the cosmos out of selfishness, but is also willing to smash the cosmos to make it better. Of course, better must be understood in a fashion that obviously isn't selfish, thus Chesterton's first point in that twofold understanding of true cosmic patriotism. The understanding of Satan as a source of evil is an infantile, Protestant conception as well. Evil does not have its source in Satan, because evil cannot have any real being if we define evil in a non-contradictory manner. Satan is a symbol for one thing, and one thing only: self-pandering inability, and the denial of the cosmic order that you exhort others to recognize and adapt to. Satan does not cause sin, he only tempts others to it, and even then only very rarely. We also must understand that the proper understanding of sin, the understanding that isn't self-contradictory such as the modern, mainstream Protestant understanding, is what separates the individual from being able to recognize the beauty of particularized things. The resurrection, to an Orthodox Christian such as myself, is not a time to cry over the death of your savior; that's stupid. It's a time of intense glory and revelation, because it represents the uncovering of the doctrine of beauty to the world.

P.S.: Anyone who perceives paradise as a land of eternal happiness has a faulty understanding of paradise.

Interzone / Re: Visions of evil
« on: December 17, 2011, 08:56:59 PM »
Meanwhile, in the Aristotelian definition that everyone ignores, good is what is most natural to a being and evil is a privation of that good.

1 [2] 3 ... 18