Exorcising a Christian Notion of God
So, for about the last 10 years I have been a Christian, and not much of a religious or philosophical person beforehand. I have been more engaged with philosophy over these last 10 years as well, and have had a lot of my assumptions about my faith questioned, but for good, though it does lead me to question what my fundamental suppositions are. I generally, as a creationist (Theistic Evolution), see God as a designer, in part, of at least the initial conditions of our cosmos. The cosmos may have existed in some form for eternity, that doesn't bother me. But, I see God as a crafter and shaper of possible outcomes.
This presupposes that freedom is ontologically necessary in my worldview, and not just in relation to ethics, though I hold to that, too. Metaphysical freedom, and indeed, even physical freedom, means that the universe is not predetermined to form in any particular way except within its pre-set boundaries. That is, though the universe cannot do anything, it has a set of possible directions it can evolve toward based upon the initial conditions. I see this from quantum theory, but also because of my metaphysical commitment to structural freedom.
So, this notion of freedom means that God cannot be omniscient. I generally see God as wise, but not someone who knows what I will type next, nor necessarily knowledgeable of whether or not I am typing. I'm not really sure as to the extent of God's knowledge, but I am persuaded that since reality is free, then God cannot know what will come next with any certainty. A lot of this thinking comes from reflections on two themes in the philosophy of religion: the problem of evil and damnation.
If God is to be considered a just God, S/he cannot let evil go unpunished. If God knew of an evil event and had the capacity to stop the event, S/he would be morally obliged to stop the event. So, this also means, for me, that God's potency is also limited. So far, I am off to a rousing heretical start.
I am seeing my most glaring presupposition so far: that God can be perceived in some sort of personal or anthropomorphic way, as if God had human-like desires, etc. Maybe this is true, but it is not necessary for a conception of God. Maybe, as some Radical, Death of God theologians are insisting, God is simply the depth-dimensions of reality, not a personal savior sky-god. I tend to like this idea, but it does away with a Biblical conception of God, which is fine because as we are learning more about the archaeology of the ANE, we can see that some of the Bible's claims are problematic.
Okay. First presupposition exorcised. God doesn't have to be a personal agent. This actually does wonders to the rest of my questions around the metaphysical implications of traditional Christian doctrines like the Incarnation, Eucharist, role of the Church in history, etc. I suppose if I had to ask a question, I would ask something about the relevance of Christianity after the death of God. What does Christianity look like when God no longer holds our fate in Her hands? It must be more than ethics, and I have a good idea of where to start, but would like to hear from you first!
This presupposes that freedom is ontologically necessary in my worldview, and not just in relation to ethics, though I hold to that, too. Metaphysical freedom, and indeed, even physical freedom, means that the universe is not predetermined to form in any particular way except within its pre-set boundaries. That is, though the universe cannot do anything, it has a set of possible directions it can evolve toward based upon the initial conditions. I see this from quantum theory, but also because of my metaphysical commitment to structural freedom.
So, this notion of freedom means that God cannot be omniscient. I generally see God as wise, but not someone who knows what I will type next, nor necessarily knowledgeable of whether or not I am typing. I'm not really sure as to the extent of God's knowledge, but I am persuaded that since reality is free, then God cannot know what will come next with any certainty. A lot of this thinking comes from reflections on two themes in the philosophy of religion: the problem of evil and damnation.
If God is to be considered a just God, S/he cannot let evil go unpunished. If God knew of an evil event and had the capacity to stop the event, S/he would be morally obliged to stop the event. So, this also means, for me, that God's potency is also limited. So far, I am off to a rousing heretical start.
I am seeing my most glaring presupposition so far: that God can be perceived in some sort of personal or anthropomorphic way, as if God had human-like desires, etc. Maybe this is true, but it is not necessary for a conception of God. Maybe, as some Radical, Death of God theologians are insisting, God is simply the depth-dimensions of reality, not a personal savior sky-god. I tend to like this idea, but it does away with a Biblical conception of God, which is fine because as we are learning more about the archaeology of the ANE, we can see that some of the Bible's claims are problematic.
Okay. First presupposition exorcised. God doesn't have to be a personal agent. This actually does wonders to the rest of my questions around the metaphysical implications of traditional Christian doctrines like the Incarnation, Eucharist, role of the Church in history, etc. I suppose if I had to ask a question, I would ask something about the relevance of Christianity after the death of God. What does Christianity look like when God no longer holds our fate in Her hands? It must be more than ethics, and I have a good idea of where to start, but would like to hear from you first!
Comments (188)
There's a saying from a rather controversial and radical Buddhist teacher, 'ruthless compassion'. Ruthless compassion is, well, compassion - it will do no harm, but always act in the best interests of those who are its subjects. But it is 'ruthless' in that it may not be nice, polite, friendly, or comforting, and it won't take any bullshit. It is more like 'get real and grow up'. It knows that life often seems horribly unfair and that not everything works out. So, I think it would look something like that.
Also a point - I think the god you're going beyond is actually 'jehovah', the sky-father of the popular imagination. I have never been an atheist, but neither have I ever believed in that sky-father. I have absolutely zero concept of what 'god' might be, which I'm beginning to think is probably a good thing.
Read up on Paul Tillich. You might find some interest there - he was criticized by other Christians for being too Eastern or semi-atheist, but I think he's pretty interesting.
Correct
Quoting Preston
Incorrect (and for a Christian as heretical as it is possible to be!) Even if we leave God out of it altogether the one simply does not follow from the other. But for a Christian committed to belief in a God with an entirely novel solution to the problem posed in the first statement it is an absolute non sequitur.
Much the same can be said for most of your post actually. The problems you raise are arguments about a Platonist ideal of God (and are from unresolvable even within that context) but despite the polularity of Neo-Platonism amongst the early Fathers of the Church that is not the God that Christians actually believe in. There is one immeasurably important distinction. The Platonic ideal God is totally impersonal and immutable. To identify the Christian God of three persons in relationship with mankind through the power of the cross with that God is simply impossible. For a Christian to say that they no longer believe in that God is nonsense for they never believed in that God in the first place.
Per Catholics and therefore most Protestants, God is considered to be perfect. The proposition that God is omnibenevolent follows from that. This is pretty standard stuff. Preston is presenting the problem of evil, which has floated about theology since around the 18th Century.
I am not in any way saying that there are not problems with Christian conceptions of God. I am saying that the so-called 'problem of evil' is not one of them because as it is configured it simply does not apply to the Christian concept of God. This remains true irrespective of the state of theology or belief of any or all Christian churches past or present. The God who sacrificed his Son on the Cross simply cannot be identical with the God of the 'problem of evil'.
Being a cynic of the highest order I'm certain that those who propose the problem even now as an objection to Christianity are well aware of this and laugh like drains when Christians are taken in by it. But that's neither here nor there. It remains indisputable that that God is not the God in which Christianity requires belief whether actual Christians believe it or not!
Whether the 'problem of evil' is actually a problem for that God is another matter altogether (although personally I think the whole argument is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys!)
There are Christian outlooks that deny omnibenevolence, but they're fringe.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
It does. Christianity was historically vibrant and dynamic in part due to it's contradictions and open-ended problems such as the nature of God's justice.
I agree that the Platonic vision of divinity is at variance with what we might come across in some semi-pagan yuletide frolicking, but it's been central to Christian thought since pretty close to the beginning. That's supposed to be his likeness there in the Vatican.
Christianity as a religion, I think, disappears if it's shorn of the Incarnation, the Eucharist, salvation due to the sacrifice of the crucifixion, the Resurrection, Original Sin, its insistence on a personal deity, and all the other doctrines and beliefs it assimilated so remarkably and successfully from the ancient pagan cults and Judaism to become the Great Hodgepodge it is. The fact it is such a hodgepodge is I believe the primary reason why the efforts made on its behalf to assimilate more philosophical (and I think more reasonable) views of a Divinity have been unsuccessful although that effort has been ongoing since at least the second century C.E. If you ignore or deny its core doctrines, I don't think you can legitimately claim to be a Christian.
On the contrary, actually. I would say that, with regard to the New Testament, the biblical God is very much a philosophical construct rather than a mythologized deity.
Also, I think you need to set yourself on a single definition and interpretation of God. If you're not sure what God is, then you can't then, quite obviously, figure out how the nature of God plays itself out, through ethics, say.
What utter twaddle! This statement is almost completely falsified by the remainder of the text if interpreted properly so I really shouldn't need to say any more. I am however utterly fascinated to learn how the Roman Catholic Church which literally invented Hell and those Protestant Churches who delight in it to the extent that they added double predestination to the mix can possibly be understood to be proponents of an omnibenevolent God, barring an entirely new definition of 'benevolent' that includes condemning people to eternal pain and punishment even before they have done anything to actually deserve it!
You have no Christian background I'm assuming.
There are theological subtleties, which your apparently black and white thinking will inevitably ignore. For example, does the fact that God eternally knows which souls will be saved and which will not, mean that the temporal unfolding of the destines of souls is preordained? Not necessarily! I think careful thought should be given to the idea of eternity here; the eternal knowledge of God does not mean that God knows what will happen before it happens, because there is no 'before' in eternity.
It's not my black and white view. It is double predestination as taught in extremist Calvinist churches. Though I do concede that 'before' was probably a slightly careless choice of word in the context.
My own view would very much be all white if we're sticking with the metaphor, he says enigmatically!
OK, but the fact that there are extremist 'black and white' Calvinist doctrines does not entail that all Calvinist doctrines are necessarily extremist (although they might be in any case). And the idea that God's eternal knowledge necessitates belief in doctrines which deny free will as Calvinism is usually understood to, is not self-evident either.
It did seem to me that you were rejecting the idea that double predestination would not necessarily be implied by the belief that God knows from all eternity the whole destinies of souls. If that is not your position, then I have misunderstood you, and I apologize for that.
That is enigmatic and being a prosaic fellow, I am not getting you here. Would you care to explain what you mean by "all white"?
There's another point which is made by some Christian philosophers, which is that damnation is some real sense the consequence of a free choice. According to them, salvation is offered freely to all, and those who choose not to accept it, are 'consigned to hell' not by the 'vengeful lord' of Protestantism, but by their own poor choices, like 'the thirsty who refuse water'.
Consider the possibility that those 'in hell' are not really aware of their plight; they rationalise it, or have adapted to it, saying 'this is as good as it gets' or 'that's life'. That maybe why they're stuck!
Post hoc justifications, interpretations and rationalizations merely serve to establish the unreasonableness or incoherence of what they purport to address, and that presents a difficulty where religions, particularly revealed religions, are concerned. They constitute more a rejection of the religion than anything else, and the acceptance of something different.
I think it's more the case that we have been conditioned into the belief in a vengeful father figure through generations of preachers who have spoken of it in those terms, or have exploited such imagery for rhetorical effect. But that, again, is because the mechanism of reward and punishment is so engrained in human psychology that we can barely think of it any other way. But I think a liberative spirituality (which mainstream religion often is not) sees through the 'carrot and stick' mentality. That's not trying to rationalise or sanitize Christianity, it is very much in keeping with the intention of the OP.
The challenge is, to merely reject belief in heaven and hell is generally to relapse back into paganism (which Western culture is manifestly doing, albeit now armed with high technology). To be held in thrall to it, is to be enslaved by dogmatism (which is what fundamentalists do). To try and understand the profound symbolic meaning is what is required. And I think it's possible to do that, and still retain a Christian view of life.
This idea was opposed in Augustine's own time by Pelagianism, which asserted that humans are born as free of sin as Adam or Christ. This makes room for the idea of free will and the working out of one's own salvation.
The early Church fathers decided on a middle course that allows for original sin and also for the individual to work towards salvation to meet the grace of God 'halfway, so to speak. "A gift is not a gift unless it is not only given, but received" is the key thought here, I believe.
In this context there is also a very important logical distinction to be made between God's purported foreordination and His foreknowledge, and what might be thought to follow necessarily from each.
Yes, I agree. That's interesting and new to me what you say about 'synergy'.
:)
This 'middle way' would seem to be more compatible with the Buddhist doctrine of Karma. We are not born absolutely pure as the Pelagians would have have it, but neither are we responsible for "the sins of the fathers" (interestingly, it is never 'the sins of the mothers'!).
Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
Matthew 13:42: "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."
2 Thessalonians 1:9: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might "
Matthew 25:46: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Revelations 21:8: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
But, apparently, they won't be aware of the fiery lake, everlasting destruction, eternal punishment, the fire which never goes out, the blazing furnace, the eternal fire. Scripture neglects to mention this, but no matter.
That's a good point; I probably by default read Wayfarer to mean "predominately a destructive influence". The thing I have always found that does my head in about Calvinism is the same thing that does my head in about (hard) determinism; the idea that our destinies are already set in stone. I can't see how that can motivate anyone to actions either good or bad, and I certainly can't see how it could motivate any sense of personal responsibility. And the thing about Calvinism that is a further mind-frack for me is that, despite a total lack of personal responsibility, we are to be judged for our actions. At least good ol' hard determinism is not only free of personal responsibility, but free of judgement, that is free of praise and blame,(or should be, if is to be consistent,anyway), as well.
Human life is so full of paradoxes!
What I observed was that there are Christian philosophers who say that 'hell' or 'damnation' can be understood as the rejection of salvation, so, in some sense, those who suffer it have chosen that fate; it is a consequence of their actions. It parallels the doctrine of 'evil as the privation of the good', which is also associated with Augustine.
That doesn't deny the reality of hell, but what it denies is the suggestion of a kind of 'divine vindictiveness' or the idea that God has created some souls whom he has then consigned to hell as a part of the overall design of Creation. That plays into the hands of atheism - 'this God, you say is good, has created a vast number of people whom he will then send to eternal torment'. The alternative interpretation is, there may indeed be those who will forego the opportunity for salvation, but that is not because God made them that way, rather, that they choose it from their own free will. Recall that a basic Christian doctrine is that one must be free to make this choice, for it to be meaningful at all.
Interestingly, there are vivid depictions of hell in medeival Buddhism also - actually, typical for Buddhism, there are a number of different hells, some hot, some cold, and all quite Heironymous Bosch-like in their evilness - but nobody is sent there by 'a divine judge' (although Yama, who represents both death and time, is often iconographically depicted as a fearsome demon). Rather, the fate of beings in 'the next world' is determined by their actions in this life.
Max Weber, the Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, is an essential read about Calvinism.
Important to remember that the word 'Hell' is an artifact of translation. Hell is actually a pagan concept from the goddess Hel who rules the Norse 'underworld'. The word 'gehenna' does not imply a physical 'hell' and is not interpreted as such for many centuries. Augustine, for example, could never have believed in the existence of Hell since evil has no reality but is the absence or diminishment of good. It is more accurate to see the cursed as being in the same boat as Adam and Eve, simply banished from Eden. They are both literally and figuratively 'the leftovers' exactly what you'd expect to find in 'gehenna' the landfill site of Jerusalem.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
This is out of place in this discussion, in my opinion. The whole Sermon on Mount is best interpreted as a stand-up routine in my opinion so anything within it must be considered as a very clever joke sending up the Law and the Pharisaic interpretation of it.
The only possible interpretation for my money!
What? >:O
Right, I totally agree with your statement here. But this, "The whole Sermon on Mount is best interpreted as a stand-up routine", doesn't mesh very well with your insightful statement about hell.
Don't you think it is likely that the Sermon on the Mount was never delivered as such. Don't NT scholars think that it was a compilation of Jesus's teachings? Joke? If it was, one would have to have been there to read the speaker and the audience together; you'd need to scan the smirks, smiles, knowing nods, noddings off, frowns, cackles, etc. Jesus was capable of the artful dodge when pushed ("Render to Caesar what is Caesar's...), don't know much about his joke-telling abilities.
Oh but it is so obviously comic. You don't seriously think that Jesus was advising people to actually cut their hands off? It's a perfect joke, with the set up "You know what they say at the Temple?" and then the punchline "well if that's right you'd better cut your hand off or you'll never get to Heaven!", knowing wink, laughs all round! It's a brilliant satire on the uselessness of the Law and the stupidity of those who follow it's every jot and tittle believing it will get them into God's good graces, the very theme which Paul would echo so powerfully in Romans as the foundation of Christian soteriology.
The failure to appreciate that Jesus (like his father) has a 'wicked' sense of humour (also evident in those parables that can reasonably be attributed to Jesus) is one of the great tragedies of the Church's history. God knows it could certainly do with lightening up. The Gospel writer's get it, even John though his taste is more to the sardonic, dry side of humour, which is why they constantly point up the Pharisees as the butt of the joke (they think they're first in the queue, can you believe that?). The best Christian writers get it (Harry Williams totally delights in it which is why I read and quote him so often). Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" nods knowingly at it. It could not be more obvious ... which of course is itself all part of the joke. Because the Pharisees, be they members of the 1st Century Temple or the 21st Century church will never get it.They will only ever have po-faced religion. The Kingdom of God, the realm of delightful laughter, will always be beyond their reach. They just take themselves and everything else too seriously to get past the door.
Religions take themselves too seriously to realize the historical development over time based on people's social and psychological needs. Both fed into each other to create a scenario where first animistic gods, then polytheistic, then monotheistic (consisting of dualistic/polythesitic/animist tendencies).
The Abrahamic religions consist of nodes breaking off, misinterpreting original versions. The Jewish original was a nationalistic mythological deity. The God of the Universe- Yaweh, takes petitions and sacrifices from a specific nation of people- the Israelites (an amalgamation of cannonite peoples of various similar cultural backgrounds united and eventually who formed a small kingdom). He's the patron god of the Israelites that got more credibility due to some influential prophet-types that were devoted to the President more than the rest of the council and they were able to convince the higher ups and priests to whittle away the the other pcannonite/midianite gods (remnants of this can be seen in Yaweh's other title of Elohim which is plural- meaning subsumed aspects of all other cannonite gods into one deity).
Anyways, Christianity is an odd Greco-Romanization and thus universalization of the a more-or-less nationalistic religious system (Judaism/proto-Judaism). It is taking Greco-Roman-Assyrian-Egyptian concepts of Mystery Cults (dying gods that transform the initiated), combining it with Greek ideas of corrupted matter (copies) and pure spirit (Ideas) (aka.. Paul of Tarsus notion that the Laws of Moses (Torah) is related to lower physical and Jesus' death and Resurrection related to higher/spiritual realm and supposedly thus nullifies the lower Laws of the physical realm).
Islam is a further combination of both Christian and Jewish concepts but instead of being being Greco-Romanized it was Arabized and thus the Jewish nationalistic religious system was oddly changed to retrofit it with Arabic cultural tendencies with some added on features of Christian theology in there as well.
All of this points to my original assertion that religion and thus notions of a deity are historical developments that placate certain social constructions and psychological needs of a certain time and place.
That is basically a positivist or naturalist account - that human culture passes through phases, beginning with the animist, then theistic, then metaphysical, finally giving way to scientific rationalism. That analysis began with Comte but the underlying theme is also elaborated by many secular intellectuals, such as Dennett's Breaking the Spell, also much earlier works like Freud's Totem and Taboo. The last paragraph is also typical of a Marxist analysis.
The fatal flaw with all such analyses is that they presume a privileged perspective from which they claim to really know what is 'behind' religion, in a sense that religion's hapless adherents cannot possibly know, they being so caught up in the muddled superstitious ways of thought, etc, which scientific rationalism and modern political theory have so helpfully swept aside. So they are invariably materialistic and tendentious in my view.
Aside from the obviously historical and cultural elements that are found in religions, there is a great deal of testimony, some of it pertaining to things for which there is no naturalistic explanation whatever. There are accounts of supernatural events, visitations, revelations, and miracles. But the general response to that is to simply tar it all with the same brush, sweep it aside as more of the same, without responding to any of its substantive claims, basically acting on the presumption that science can, or has, discredited all such testimony, often without the most rudimentary investigation of what it actually contains.
Have a look at The Laughing Jesus, co-authored by Timothy Freke, which claims that the story Jesus' life and resurrection was a myth derived from a number of similar religious myths circulating in the ancient middle east, and sythensized by the Gnostics into the Biblical narratives. I have seen him speak, he's a charismatic speaker, but I'm not convinced by it.
I think that something vital was lost in the formation of the early church, which coalesced out of a chaos of competing ideas, doctrines, and practices. My 'anthropology of Jesus' is that he was the God-realised being in the sense understood by Advaita Vedanta, but which is an understanding that is not shared with mainstream Christian doctrine. He was indeed a periapetic enlightened sage and as such a member of a unique class of humans.
Ah the good old problem of evil. We see it is not resolved in this world, but surely it must be in the next?
Here is the hard line theology: there is no reward for virtue, and no punishment for vice but that which man initiates. Because, if virtue were rewarded, it would be reduced to mere prudence.
How one would like to be comforted that having been crucified and being innocent, justice reigned in the other world. And naughty children will be sent to bed with no supper. Verily I say unto ye, the arseholes will get away with it, and decent folk will be trodden upon and there will be no recourse but what ye impose yourselves. For if being good was too much fun, then everyone would do it, and the real estate of heaven would suffer inflation.
(That is where I take issue with Protestantism, 'salvation by faith' and 'total depravity'. I think it leads to a kind of fatalism and dogmatism. It is where I think Buddhism is a superior ethical philosophy - 'by oneself one is purified, by oneself one is defiled'. But in Buddhism, there is, as it were, a larger theatre of operations.)
But I think the basic insight must be that humans are in some sense related to (i.e. 'children of') the higher intelligence (however conceived) that is the origin/source/ground of being. 'Virtue' consists of awakening to this fundamental fact, which is expressed in various allegorical and dogmatic formula. Vice consists of being habituated to sense-pleasures and broadly speaking everything that divides you from that sense of relationship.
I don't honestly know if, when one dies, that there is anything beyond that, but I think your life establishes a kind of trajectory, so to speak, and where you're aiming, has consequences beyond this existence.
That is a strand of Buddhism, but it makes no sense to me, that the impure is the agent of purity. I prefer the Taoist notion that it is inaction that allows the mud to settle and the water to clear. It seems to me that enlightenment and salvation have the same function here, as goals to strive for. And striving to end strife is as good a way as any of muddying the waters.
But this quietism is not fatalism; the fatalist will not be still, but continues to act as before.
Quoting Wayfarer
Again, this seems like pious hope, wishful thinking. Vice has no relation to virtue. Hatred is not the child of love, but the absence of love.
It does not have to be evolutionary necessarily, but there seems to have been a trend from localized gods to the more universality of gods (usually in some council or family) as societies developed into larger stratified civilizations and empires. Monotheism was a simple derivative of taking the president of the gods and pretty much making that one subsume the other gods' roles into a unified being that handles all of it and who doesn't like the petitions going to anything else.. Anyways, I am not even suggesting it is as simple as a progression because even in animistic religions or polytheism (like many Hindu sects and Yoruba of West Africa), there is usually an underlying "force" that the other gods are a manifestation of. However, this "force" is usually deemed too impersonal to care about human events, and thus impotent to the psychological needs of surviving and social relations that humans must contend with. Interestingly, as societies became more complex, the Force in the background started to get in the foreground again and you get a situation where Hindu samhadis are trying to unify with the Atman. So you get a situation where there is a neo-emphasis on uniting with the impersonal force of the universe rather than petitioning so-and-so god for a particular event to occur or for favorable outcomes in a particular aspect of life (fertility, good agricultural conditions, trade, etc.).
No, the quoted aphorism is non-sectarian, common to all schools; it is from the Dhammapada. I interpret it as saying 'you alone are responsible for your fate'. (Although in later East Asian Buddhism there was a debate between 'self-power' and 'other-power' as a source of enlightenment.)
That type of figure is like Jupiter or Zeus, or one of the other 'chief gods' of the ancient pantheons. But I think the doctrinal response to that by Christians is that God is not 'a god' in that sense. I think that In the context of ancient cultures, the only understandable analogy for the 'one God' was as 'a god' - like Zeus or Jupiter or Baal, a tribal or regional deity to whom sacrifices were made and favours asked, but, as you say, as chief amongst them. But I think depicting God in those terms, was a concession to the popular mentality, or a way of depicting some fundamental truth about life in a way that would be intelligible to those cultures.
And still today there are plenty of people who believe (or disbelieve) in a sky-father figure to whom they pray for favours or healing or good fortune. (Indeed that figure can take the form of Buddha). But whether that is the real meaning, or the definitive meaning, ought not to be assumed.
George Lucas derived the idea of 'The Force' from Eastern mythology.
The word 'religion' has a huge range of meanings, of which deity worship is one. But yoga, asceticism, trance states, and those kinds of practices, are more derived from shamanism than from deity worship. Shamans were also responsible for divination, knowing the movements of the herds and understanding the seasons, as well as medicinal plants, and all manner of other 'powers'. But that stream of culture is ancient indeed, there are statues of deity figures sitting in lotus positions sourced from the Mohenjo-Daro findings in NW India, that date back 6,000 years. So it isn't as if those kinds of practices succeeded deity-worship, they have always co-existed as part of the culture.
The shamanic roots of yoga was something explored by religious studies scholar Mircea Eliade in books like https://amzn.com/0691119422 and https://amzn.com/0691142033
Indeed. Hence my neologism of neo-emphasis on the impersonal force. Perhaps the shaman taps into the force in a proto-version of what the Yogi is trying to do. Alongside (and probably prior to) animism was/is animatism. However, though similar in a sense that it is tapping into a transcendental reality- equating shamanism with full blown Raja Yoga practices may be more of a surface-level comparison. Although, I would not doubt that shamanic practices were a proto-type that led to more developed metaphysics of such practices. Being that Mohenjo-Daro is considered one of the first full blown civilizations, even by that time, these theologies were probably more developed than localized shamanic practices of foraging bands or semi-permanent small subsistence villages.
But we can't get away from the fact that scripture describes hell as a place of terrible, never-ending suffering, like unto being roasted in a fire or furnace. And yes, choice is involved. In the New Testament, at least, that choice includes the choice not to believe Jesus is God. Now, "believe in me or burn forever" seems to me indicative of a certain vindictiveness, and is somewhat surprising in an Almighty being, as is the idea of him being jealous.
Well, I'm not sure to what extent the writers of the Gospels and Revelation were aware of Norse concepts of the underworld. Greco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife were grim in their way, but as far as I'm aware being burned eternally didn't figure much in them. Fire was generally considered divine or quasi-divine, in fact, by pagan philosophers, rather as it was to Zarathustra. I'm sure the apparently satisfying vision of nonbelievers roasting forever came from somewhere, but don't really know its origin. I say "satisfying" as the saints and those who make it to heaven are sometimes described as being able to witness from there the terrible plight of those in hell.
Luther said that the greatest thing about heaven would be its view of hell.
'Vindictivness', 'jealousy', etc, are analogies. They depict 'the holy' in a kind of anthropomorphic way, so as to get through the thick skulls of tribal nomads.
What a guy. But he wasn't alone, I'm afraid. Here's Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica:
"In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned." Perfectly, forsooth.
As far as I know, Tertullian (one of the early Christian apologists) limited his delight in torment to what would take place on Judgment Day. Who knows what he thought (hoped?) would take place in hell. But he had great expectations about Judgment Day:
“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause."
The use of "spectacles" is interesting, it being a word often used in connection with the Roman ludi in the arena, including gladiatorial games. It seems the Last Judgment was to be a Christian spectacle. And in fact the Christian Roman Empire proved to be far better at persecution than the pagan Roman Empire.
We're just creatures. Inherently, and when we are wronged, or we see others wronged, part of us wishes to pay back that suffering and pain a thousand fold -- but those that hurt us are just people, that themselves were hurt, and now fear monsters. There are no monsters though, just people.
Yes, especially the dancers; very evil. Notice he didn't mention lawyers? He was one himself. He may not have been a very successful one, though. Roman magistrates had judicial authority, and he pictures them liquefying in flames.
That's just what justice is.
That's what vengeance is, and it always come too late.
Not really - justice has a sense for a fair punishment. Vengeance is just unfair punishment (and often also unlawful one) - overly great punishment for the wrong that was committed.
"infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person."
Actually almost verbatim that's what vengeance is. If we were really going to settle things, equalize them, then we'd better start with Cain.
We can't bring anyone justice, it's far far beyond our means, all we can do is try to mitigate, and prevent as much suffering and harm as possible, and promote flourishing, and health. Harming others, no matter how much you figure they deserve it is working at cross-purposes to this. You're then part of the problem, and not the solution.
If you'd said justice in the sense of preventing future harm, you'd be right. You didn't. "Paying back with suffering and pain" is always vengeance. It's jealously over the favoured world which someone took away from us. A fantasy we have power over others, which can return the lost world we desire so much-- "Burn them for eternity and the loss will be resolved."
It won't be. What is lost cannot be undone.
Well we have justice precisely so that punishment isn't up to the harmed one to decide - because again the punishment needs to be fair. Vengeance would occur more frequently if there was no law. And still it occurs in cases which are not adequately and fairly governed by the law, and in which people are not adequately protected by the law.
To each as they deserve - that's what justice is. If that's what justice is, then the evil deserve to suffer no?
No. No-one deserves it, not even Hitler.
Punishments for the protection of the community and improving the lives of victims in certain ways are deserved, but not suffering specifically.
We don't deal out justice to make people suffer. Sometimes it is an unavoidable consequences of protecting the community, so there is suffering within the context of punishment, but it's not why punishment is applied.
To think otherwise is just our jealousy over what's been lost. It's idea that because you didn't get what you desired, the person who prevented it or took it away from you doesn't deserve any sort of existence or happiness. A tantrum at not getting what you want and being unable to to control others to your wishes. Your God is honest when describing themselves as jealous.
God is ultimate example of being unable to live in a world which does not meet what someone thinks they deserve. Someone not acting in the way you desire? Burn them for entirety. They must have nothing but pain in their lives.
Can you justify this please?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Who said this? It's only been said that if someone does something wrong they have to pay for it - the fair share of payment, not more and not less. The fact that they need to pay for their sins isn't to say they don't deserve any sort of existence or happiness - that, at least in most cases, is too extreme of a punishment considering the offence.
This is an ethical point. The desire to suffering only heaps more pain and lack of well-being on the world. It clouds judgement. One who seeks to inflict pain and suffering on others is only concerned with their personal vengeance. They put "payment" above all concerns and cannot see how they are damaging the world.
The idea that vengeance is the Lord's becasue of their superior judgement is one of the greatest cases of irony. No-one's mind is more clouded by jealously than the God who thinks transgressors ought to be wiped out of suffer for all eternity.
Oh but it does, for the duration of their suffering, for they are meant to suffer. In this moment, they are meant to lack existence or happiness so we can feel like we have control over what's been lost (despite that being eternal and so their is no control over it). Which is frequently a long time.Or involves sufferings which have a lasting impact-- the inability to grow a new leg of an intimate relationship for example.
Well of course they are meant to suffer if they do wrong - this stems precisely from the definition of justice. As I have defined justice, and as Plato and many other philosophers have defined it, it is giving to each what they deserve. If X deserves his monthly salary, then it should be given to him. If X doesn't deserve his monthly salary, it shouldn't be given to him.
No, it doesn't-- it stems from you definition of justice that suffering is deserved. The point is this is not true. Wrong doers may deserve something (and some suffering ay be a by product), but they don't specifically deserve to suffer. That's just an irrational desire for vengeance.
Suffering CAN be deserved, of course. So can rewards and goodness.
You got any argument for this?
Yes... I talked about it in a previous post. It's just heaps more damage and loss on the world. That is what "deserves suffering" means. For nothing more than a fantasy of control for those who have lost. Precisely the irrational response that makes some victims poor judges of punishment.
No you have just done a sleight of hand here. The person who deserves suffering is not "the world".
Clearly false... the person who (supposedly) deserves suffering is part of the world. Not to mention they have their own social connections, friends, family, etc.,etc.
Others will be hurt by their suffering too.
Ehmm so their friends etc. are "the world"? Look, saying that the person deserves to suffer isn't the same as saying that the world deserves to suffer. If he deserves to suffer of course it means putting more harm and suffering on him - that's precisely the point that we're discussing. So you're arguing in a circle - "the person who does wrong deserves to suffer" is wrong because "it just heaps more suffering on him" - of course! That's just the point. If my friend deserves to suffer, then I'll be glad to see him suffer, because justice is more important. Equally, if I deserve to suffer, then I should suffer - this is just what justice is - and I would desire to suffer if that is the case.
For sure, but my point wasn't that you were saying the world needs to suffer. It was that you were putting more loss and suffering in the world, without any outside gain.
The issue is that "deserving suffering" is not justice. My point here is that he does not deserve to suffer. The world doesn't need it and nothing is gained from it.
So your argument is that because suffering doesn't give a gain to those who have lost, it is henceforth not necessary? I disagree - precisely because I take it as definition that justice is giving to each as they deserve. Do you disagree with that? If you don't, then do you agree that if someone does wrong, then they deserve to suffer for it? If you don't agree, then do you not see that it follows from the definition of justice - namely to each as they deserve - that the one who has done harm deserves precisely harm?
This definition, though correct in prinicple, is actually an empty generality. Who knows what another or even oneself deserves? Only God, if anyone. It is no good saying the law is just. because the law is made by men, and the law is an ass. Christ came to overturn the Law and substitute Love. Your sentiment of valorizing the enjoyment of suffering is fundamentally un-Christian.
>:O
Good, then I have no competition! Perfect, I enjoy monopolies :P
The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I'll let you guys figure out who said that.
You're the one that denies, and discards it.
Your interpretations are too black and white. Nowhere have I said that I think Love consists in the annihilation of Law. Love consists in the fulfillment, the completion, of Law, which means overturning it; standing it on its feet instead of its head, so to speak. Enjoyment of the suffering of others is not consistent with either Law or Love, and hence it is un-Christian.
This is false. If I love myself, then I wish to be set straight when I go wrong. And therefore I wish to be punished - to get what I deserve - for having done wrong. And I wish the same for my neighbour - out of love.
Quoting John
Sorry but for common folk, fulfilment is the exact opposite of overturning. Overturning means to replace - fulfilment means to uphold and extend. Those are very very different.
The attempts by atheist philosophers to derive naturalistic explanations for life, the universe and everything, don't admit the possibility of what we can only vaguely call 'the transcendent'. They are obliged to assert that the fundamental constituents of life, are physical objects and forces, or cultural and social forces - the laws of physics, evolution, the means of production, so forth and so on. There is a huge range of such explanations, of course, occupying enormous volumes of literature.
All of the spiritual traditions differ greatly, but all of them see the fundamental ground of reality as being in some sense alive, or 'aliveness'. Our ordinary sense of what is normal or real is unavoidably conditioned by our inherent self-concern which conceals or obscures our relationship with that, which is analogous to a 'parent-child' relationship. Spiritual awakening (a term which is not really native to mainstream Christianity) is realising that relationship with the source or ground of being.
So spiritual teachings are generally concerned with elucidating or re-instating this sense of relationship, or relatedness, in my view. But there's also an important sense in which such things can only be learned by doing - they are not conceptual, verbal, or intellectual models, but an actual way-of-being. Again, I think a lot of Biblical metaphors around 'being born of the spirit' are trying to convey that.
So the 'fulfillment of the law' I see as being an allusion to that state of 'divine union' or oneness with God, although I'm now starting to think that there's been a lot of misleading nonsense put about around such ideas by the counter-culture.
The person who started this thread, who doesn't seem to have stuck around, is wrestling with just this kind of question.
One of my favorite quotes. One cannot hit a child for hitting another child and tell them that hitting is wrong. Their action contradict their words, and they promote what they claim to disavow. They have to actually be saying "hitting is wrong for you, but right for me", while claiming to be the ones that aren't vicious relativists. They claim many things.
Thankfully I'm not unjust, I do not promote ostracism, I do promote tolerance, regardless of how pretend. Those that are wrong ought to be use to pretending, and those that aren't won't need to.
Somebody's neighbor, right?
The least of us said that.
Propaganda. As if the relations of man to man could be transformed. As if human nature could be overcome. As if free will never existed, and people could be forced - by education, by loving-kindness, or by whatever else - to be good to one another. As if the possibility for sin could be eradicated from the world. Foolishness.
Quoting Wosret
No it doesn't follow that if a child hits another, then he should also be hit. As I said, the punishment has to be adequate for the offence. No one said that hitting back is necessarily the adequate punishment - and the adequate punishment will also depend upon the circumstance and the severity of the situation. One possible punishment may be locking the child in his room temporarily - so that he understands that what he did was wrong, and will not be acceptable. Locking someone isn't acceptable - in most circumstances. Just like murdering someone, or hitting someone isn't acceptable in most circumstances. But there are circumstances when it is acceptable - say for example that you are attacked by someone, and in defending yourself you kill them. That is still murder, but it is acceptable morally speaking. In that case you wouldn't say "murder is wrong for you but right for me" - you'd say in situation X, it is right for Y to resort to murder if he/she must. Things aren't as black and white as you (and the other progressives) try to make them.
Enjoyment of the suffering of others, and the far less likely enjoyment of your own suffering, however deserved such suffering might be, is not the same as recognition that the suffering may be necessary and to a good purpose.
In the Dark Ages people no doubt enjoyed watching the sufferings of people being burned at the stake, feeling justified in their enjoyment by the comfortable belief that the punishments were deserved. It even becomes a form of macabre entertainment.
Quoting Agustino
You love to speak for the common folk, don't you? The fact is there are several possible meanings or nuances of meaning of the term "overturn". It might be better in future to ask for clarification, rather than jumping to erroneous conclusions about which meaning or nuance the author intends.
Marx said about Hegel that he overturned his philosophy, which is often taken to mean that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its head. He actually meant that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its feet, that he gave it its proper foundation (materialism). The law without love is without proper foundation; it is 'upside down' or if you prefer arse-about. The law should be interpreted in the light of love; then it will gain its flexibility. Without love the law is rigid and lifeless.
Depends - aufheben - which is the term you're referring to by "overturning" doesn't translate very well in English. The dialectic process through which the aufheben is achieved does not eradicate the two opposites which led to it - but subsumes them both within a higher perspective - ie. being and non-being are subsumed in becoming - which is both being and non-being at the same time. Certainly they are not overturned though - the English term simply doesn't mean the same thing. Aufheben is really that higher perspective which permits one to swallow a certain way of seeing into a higher one - it doesn't eliminate it though. It's a fulfilment of it - the swallowed thing still remains. So I agree that the law is fulfilled by love - it is subsumed and derives from love. That much is true. But one doesn't start from love and get to the law - except in thought. The dialectical process moves onwards - from law unto love.
I don't think you have read that passage thoroughly The point is that a revolution that lacks the right means, that is lacks the right spirit will never succeed. "The relations of man to man" can be transformed, not by imposition from without, but from within if the men are transformed by love.
The possibility for sin could never be totally eradicated; but it could be greatly diminished; but not, for sure, by imposition "from above"; it could only be by change from within.
Both are needed. The law is needed for love to become possible. Only under the law is it possible to reach up to love. That's why all religions - even Buddhism for example - emphasises morality for its practitioners before meditative insight. That morality is conducive to everything else. The law is conducive to love.
Despite Buddhism and early Christianity being worlds apart their practical morality have many points in common.
Marx' inversion of Hegel resulted in a thorough materialism, however - there is no room in Marx for geist, as such (although that is surely tangential to this thread.)
To be sure aufheben is a nuanced term , just as overturn is; and they could thus be thought to be everything from exactly equivalent to not equivalent at all, depending on interpretation and context.
It remains the case, however, in Hegel's view, that the dialectical moments of consciousness are successively overturned. The fact that something remains from what has been overturned is really merely common sense; everyone knows that in history more or less remnants of what went before always remain in what comes after.
For Marx - geist is part of matter - that's his aufheben, which isn't an overturning, but a subsuming. Geist - spirit - is subsumed merely as part of matter, which is final.
Not "something" remains - all of it does. Imagine two circles which don't meet. Now you draw a bigger circle around them. Now there is a connection between them - they do form part of the same thing (the bigger circle), even though at first they appeared to be completely separate and unconnected. Aufheben is the resolution of the contradiction by rising to the perspective from which the contradiction vanishes. Being and non-being are apparently contradictory. Both cannot be true it seems. Either something is, or it isn't. But there's a higher perspective - that of becoming, in which this paradox and contradiction is resolved - something both is and isn't - at one and the same time.
Yes and in the Western tradition the revelation of Law (the Torah) comes before the revelation of love (the Gospel). This is certainly the situation vis a vis historical priority; I haven't denied that. The law in principle is conducive to love; but if the law is practiced without love then it is not, in practice, conducive to love. Love is spiritually prior to law.
I would say that the law is conducive but not sufficient for love. If you remain stuck with the law - if you become a legalist - and assume that the law is all there is, that the law is the end - the goal - then you are failing to reach up to the higher perspective. But I insist that it is impossible to achieve love without the law.
I don't think it's true at all to say that everything necessarily remains. Today there are still remnants of monarchical rule, but there may come a day in human history where nothing at all of monarchy remains, for example.
Sure, but that is a truism.You could say it is impossible to achieve society without law; and love is meaningful only within society. But even then, I am not too sure about that. Do not animals love? You might say that animal love is bound up the the law of instinct; but there are cases like that of a lioness adopting a baby antelope. If creation is an expression of God's love then love comes before all else.
'Just so', says the teacher, 'you should relinquish all dhammas, to say nothing of a-dhamma'.
This awareness of the teaching as being a vehicle or a 'skillful means' but not an end in itself is one of the cardinal distinctions of Buddhism; I don't think there's an analogy for it in the Biblical religions.
And don't animals also love in society? Maybe their own societies, or if you have a dog, in the society of your family, and so forth.
Nonsense, for Hegel material history just is the evolution of consciousness. The democracy of the Greeks of antiquity is very different to what we call democracy. For example, they kept slaves, and women were not citizens.
No this is false. The evolution of consciousness can be seen in history - but it has no necessary connection with the material evolution of man - the way his material conditions evolve.
There is an exact parallel - Love is the end (or goal) of the law. Thus the law is a skilful means of achieving love.
For Hegel, history is the evolution of spirit; all the shapes and details of history reflect the overarching moments of spirit.
I'm not going to bother arguing about this. All I can say is, read some more Hegel. You obviously don't understand his philosophy.
Intellectual history - the history of ideas. Not material history - the history of what castle followed upon the destruction of the former.
Sure they generally do, but the case of the lioness and the antelope is an exception. Also, thoug, animals do not have codified laws that needs to be given by a lawgiver; they don't have an animal Moses.
Love and law are one for animals, in their state of innocence. The way for humans to come to Freedom is via love, (which does not exclude the law) but not through the law alone. Love must come first (spiritually speaking).
Animals may not have codified laws - in written format - but they do seem to follow a moral code in the way they organise themselves.
Quoting John
I'm not sure.
Quoting John
This is impossible. You cannot reach that which is higher without first passing through that which is lower.
The very difference between Hegel and Marx is that Hegel understood the material exigencies of history to be a reflection of the history of spirit (or consciousness as reflected in the history of ideas), whereas Marx saw the history of ideas to be a reflection of the history of the material exigencies (economics as the dialectic of materialism).
That's true. But you're speaking about what has been historically prior, and I am speaking about what is now spiritually prior. Thanks to the advent of Christ, we do not need to pass through the stage of preoccupation with Law now and may proceed directly to Love.
But I think there has been a strong tendency in mainstream religion to loose sight of that. It's called 'mistaking the finger for the moon' - another Buddhist parable. Actually it is what I learned from Buddhism, that has enabled me to re-evaluate the meaning of my own Christian heritage.
Google 'Joachim of Fiore'.
The evolution of consciousness is material. Inspiration from people within an environment and ideas handed down through the generation. Hegel is actually talking about this history of ideas in culture and society. The call and response of ideas in the material.
How in knowledge (that is, what is know to people) we (often) begins with "X", then someone of the time reacts with "not X," till finally we get to a point of holding both "X" and "not-X" at once.
Hegel is essentially giving a description of the evolution of knowledge when we look back on what came before us.
Strictly speaking, knowledge does not need to evolve. We might jump straight to synthesis in our ideas. In such cases though, we cannot "derive" meaning from what's gone before. Since we've jumped to knowledge of all sides in such cases, there is no act of thinking through to discover something based on what we already know. Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with distain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery."
I don't think so - I think we still need the preoccupation with the Law to be able to understand Christ. The movement has happened in human history - but not necessarily in our own personal history, which is what matters.
Quoting John
Well this is what I've been saying - that was Marx's mistake. He didn't understand that Hegel's was the history of ideas - not the history of material conditions. This is precisely the point I was making.
You wouldn't be alone -
https://www.amazon.com/Without-Buddha-Could-Not-Christian/dp/185168963X
Ah I feel Spinoza's intuitive knowledge (the third kind) being close to you ;)
In this respect, both Marx and Hegel (and countless other philosophers) make the same mistake. They say their logic amounts to prediction of the future. Hegel says our ideas will/must evolve in someway. Marx says given particular conditions (both "material" and ideas), our society will/must evolve. Neither claim is true.
For all we know, we might use the same ideas for centuries, maybe even millennia. Or we might jump straight to synthesis. Or the material contains of the world might be such that synthesis is forgotten. Or a set of thesis, antithesis, synthesis might be forgotten entirely. Hegel overlooks the material nature of our ideas. Logic might be enough to define truth, but it doesn't mean someone is thinking it.
Marx makes the same sort of mistake. He acts as if the ideas of economic systems will function as material change. Sure, he is aware of the need for change in material conditions, but they aren't specified in detail (i.e. social organisation, economic policies), so we are left with nothing more than imagined gesture towards a new economic system. We are left with the destiny of Marx's social analysis. At some point, somewhere, when the right condition occurs, we will get a communist society, but there is no effective description of when such a associated occurs. All we can do is point out our present society doesn't meet standard and proclaim we are destined to overcome this at some point. The change of society is only in our imagination at such a point.
Oh wow, what a great event, I will certainly record it in my calendar - I agree!
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I also agree here - there is no "evolution" of consciousness - no straight line going upwards. It's pretty much random change - both up and down.
Which is why Mill is vastly superior, he doesn't sever Hegel's method, and ignore the animal spirits.
Philosophical rationalism! No argument from me.
Mill was a shaman?
I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent.
Philosophy with a transcendent saviour hits the same notes as philosophical rationalism-- "discover" transcendent force and you will become wise and meaningful. Understand the argument "You are given be God" and you'll finally matter and be wise.
If I dare to say that people matter without the transcendent, if knowledge of themselves and their worth is just given to them, without any sort of "logical discovery" (here I mean it in the sense of understanding and wisdom, so it applies to the transcendent as much a philosophical rationalism), I'm treated like a nihilistic heretic who's only trying to fool people into living meaningless lives.
What you call philosophical rationalism's understanding of knowledge is more or less the advocate of the transcendent's transplanted. By this transcendent force (God, PSR, logic), we derive that we are necessary better (than everyone else) and saved from the ignominy of our existence (e.g. meaningless, lack of a particular instance of knowledge, etc.,etc. ).
For both philosophical rationalism and the transcendent philosophy, knowledge of the self is the enemy. To merely be oneself, to be worthy (a meaningful life) and/or unworthy (a sinner who's terrible actions have no resolution), is the enemy. Both are running from themselves to a fantasy of perfection where there is a genocide of any failing.
They are the ones who think "logically," who avoid the ignominy of being ignorant, whether that be in recognising the absence of God or realising meaning is dependent on God. They are the ones who don't have to respect their failings, whether it be because the actions were in the service of logic or science or because their sins are resolved by God. By thinking "logically," they believe themselves to have become an image of perfection and so are necessarily better and wiser than anyone else. An entirely selfish ignorance of the self.
I'm by no means an expert on any of them, and I haven't been to university. I've read Hegel's a general history of the world, as well as listened to lecture courses on him, and also took an online course about Kierkegaard which involved his relation, and responses to Hegel. After a course on Marx I wasn't really interested in reading him,
Mill I read unsettled questions of political economy, and on liberty, as well as listened to a lecture course on him as well.
You know that in anime, it's always the super villains that are going on about transcendence. Personally I think that being a human is pretty great. No better options I know about.
So if there were to be such a thing as a moral compass, what do you think it would point at? What force would attract the needle? If 'philosophy' is 'the love of wisdom', or 'love-wisdom', and 'wisdom' is nothing other than being as we already are, then why is that philosophy?
Because reason isn't a slave to the passions, and there are a lot of powerful gejustus about.
John "Asinus" Mill. The godfather of the Progressives... oh my days!
Oh, John Stuart Mill did well enough, I think. Especially given the upbringing he had to endure thanks to his horrible father, James, who apparently thought to make him into some kind of prodigy regardless of methods used, probably leading to his later breakdown. His utilitarianism was more sophisticated than his daddy's and that of Bentham, taking into consideration quality of benefits and goods, and he even accepted and espoused positions which would probably be considered conservative thanks to the influence of Coleridge and others, i.e. a system of voting giving the better educated and more sophisticated citizens votes counting for more than those of others. His views on the "emancipation" of women may have been considered "progressive" in a bad way by most in his time, but one hopes that's not the case now. I suppose conservatives haven't forgiven him for that speech he made when M.P. denying the claim he had said all conservatives were stupid people, explaining that what he had actually said was that all stupid people were conservatives.
Not necessarily. Your practical views are very close to some forms of meditative Buddhism from my understanding. You're all about being centered in your body, being right here in the present moment, fully aware of what is actually going on around you right here and right now, and not being trapped in dwelling on the future or the past, or otherwise being seduced by thinking or trapped by images. You think that if someone is like this - then they will not even inquire about God or the transcendent, they'd feel no need. An approach that owes a lot to mindfulness and pragmatism. Your approach isn't that uncommon to quite a few of the religious folks by the way - although it is true that it is an approach that is atypical of the typical Christian religious believer in the US for example. And it really depends on what you're doing at the moment whether this type of approach is useful. If I'm running a marathon - or otherwise participating in a sports competition, such an approach is likely to be very beneficial - it will indeed give me peak performance in that circumstance - a peak performance that I cannot achieve by being worried about what my opponent is doing, how fast they're running, whether they're ahead or not, etc. . But if I'm say an investor, trying to decide what I shall do with my money - that approach isn't very useful. I can be in the moment all I want - but that's not what would be productive in that case. I need to be analytic at that moment - not produce a synthesis, but rather analyse, and think about the situation - more like completing a puzzle.
I don't see any good reason to think that we need to be anything more than mindful of the Law; certainly not preoccupied with it; I don't think that's going to help.
Quoting Agustino
But this is by no means the point I was making. I didn't say that Marx was or was not mistaken. I would say that he understood very well that "Hegel's was the history of ideas- not the history of material conditions". Marx understood that perfectly well and that is why he overturned Hegel (on his own account stood Hegel right way up) to place the focus on the history of material conditions, instead of on the history of consciousness (or ideas, or spirit, if you prefer).
The point I made was that Hegel thought material conditions are an expression of spirit; so while Hegel's history of spirit is obviously not the history of actual material conditions, that fact is exactly what you would expect to be the outcome, on account of what it was that Hegel prioritized.
Very good. That's what I've been saying. It remains for you (or Marx) to show the necessary link between the history of ideas and the history of material conditions ;)
So, this has nothing to do with what we have been discussing.
It's not what you have been saying, either; because you claimed that Marx's mistake was that he did not see that Hegel was concerned with the history of ideas and not material conditions.
You claimed earlier that Hegel was not making a point about material conditions but about the evolution of consciousness. I disagree with this if it is taken to mean that Hegel saw no connection between them. He thought material events are a manifestation of spirit; so the history of events necessarily mirrors the history of ideas, with the former being dependent on the latter. Marx thought the opposite; so he is a reversal of Hegel.
Your earlier claim is correct only if it is taken to mean that Hegel's primary focus was not on the history of events or material conditions; but this is obvious and hardly worth stating.
Which, by the way, is true - just as you yourself have just admitted.
Quoting John
I disagree - he thought the history of events is related to the history of ideas - ie affected by the history of ideas - but not determined by it.
Quoting John
Quoting John
Self-contradictory.
Quoting John
Good, so then can you tell me what point about what we have been discussing are you actually in disagreement with?
Quoting Agustino
How so?
Quoting Agustino
All of this came out of your jumping to conclusions about what I meant by 'overturning'. The disagreement has been about whether preoccupation with the Law is necessary for spiritual growth. You jumped to the extreme erroneous conclusion that I had meant that with the advent of Love we could abolish law altogether.
Anyway, to repeat, I don't believe you are arguing in good faith now: I think you just don't want to admit you were wrong; or you want to disagree just for the sake of it, or whatever; I don't know. But, to be honest, I can tell you that I have lost interest in discussing with you until you stop trying to tendentiously interpret and distort what I say.
Spiritual practice is like that also. So perhaps the higher stages of it, are when the student has internalised the understanding so well that he or she doesn't have to think about it any more. Then it's no longer a matter of 'following rules'.
Actually, Chögyam Trungpa, maverick Tibetan Buddhist, used to teach that the formal aspect of Buddhist training - the vinaya rules and precepts - were the 'hinayana' aspect of the path. 'Hinayana' means 'lesser vehicle'. But he didn't mean that in a pejorative way - there are times in one's development when one simply has to 'pay attention to the rules', and go about doing things in a self-conscious way. He saw that as being foundational to the whole practice. But through mastery of a discipline then that formal aspect of the practice falls into abeyance. It doesn't mean you can simply disregard the law, but it means you've internalised it in such a way that it doesn't have to be consciously observed; it's become second nature.
I think that is similar in meaning to the Biblical teaching 'the letter kills, but the spirit gives life'. (But to write that, takes letters. ;-) )
There is no force setting the compass. It just points. When we know something, we are already what we are. I don't understand the foolishness of scientism until I'm wise to it.
We might say wisdom emerges out of the world of fools. Someone has a moment of inspiration, having a though of a better way of thinking or living (pointing of the compass). They pass it on through teaching (pointing of the compass). No force exists which necessitates wisdom. We have to do that work. We must have the ideas and the actions. It cannot be transcendent.
If we are to be wise like God, we must have God's wisdom. We must have the relevant thoughts and actions.
That's why philosophy. It takes us to do the pointing. Not so the we can hide from the failings of the world ( "be saved" ), but to understand the failing world still matters (even Hitler had a meaningful life) and act with ethics, wisdom and compassion.
That is empirically false, a compass is indeed moved by a force, which is the point of the analogy. But you write such nonsense there's no point discussing it, you will just make up more meaningless verbiage.
I was speaking metaphorically, not empirically. Wisdom and ethics are not magnetism.
Though it's worth discussing empirical forces because they are really an expression of objects, rather than a constraint.
We say "a force acts on the needle," but where exactly is the object pushing it? It's the needle that moves with an environment of surrounding objects. We might say, at that moment, the needle points.
The existence of the pointing needle is responsible for that state, not some pre-determining force.
I don't mean it in that sense. People who believe in the transcendent experience synthesis all the time, some more than some who reject the transcendent. In this sense, my approach is not uncommon to religious folks, but frequent. As it is to just about everyone, at least some of the time. All it takes is an instance of understanding the moment. Question of "transcendental need" are another subject entirely. That's a particularly sort of commentary on meaning, not a feature of synthesis itself.
What I mean is those with transcendent belief cannot stand the idea that knowledge is a question of existence. For knowledge to be a thing that emerges and is lost in the dance of the finite world is heretical. What they lack is not synthesis, but an understanding that knowledge involves synthesis. They still think knowledge is destined by logic, a tradition which will always obtain in the world.
You misunderstand my approach too. Synthesis occurs with every instance of knowledge, even in long term planning. Experience is always an existing moment. If I'm planning, I'm focused on the future in that moment, so it is a moment of synthesis rather than abstraction. I know all sides in the present: my analysing, that I'm avoiding ignorance of the relevant subject, my present state which is focused on analysing.
What you are talking about there is elimination of distractions. To avoid worries, so they don't take away from a focus on an important task. You are talking about leaving out thoughts which you don't need at the moment, not whether an instance of knowledge amounts to synthesis or not.
Yes, I agree that following rules is important for some disciplines; but not for all. It is not important for poetry and painting for example; on the contrary. When it comes to spiritual paths, the Christian way is the way of the radical existential leap of true repentance. But this only comes to be when there is real transformation. The leap and the transformation may be understood to be codependently originating; you must be transformed to take the leap, and you must take the leap in order to be transformed.It is a mystery. That is why people speak of being converted; it is a profoundly life-changing experience (or so I am led to believe).
There's a Sanskrit word which parallels it almost exactly, namely, 'paravritti' - the particle 'vritti' is one of the Sanskrit words for 'mind', and 'para' means 'higher' or 'beyond'. According to D T Suzuki in his commentary on the Lankavatara Sutra:
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm
Of course there's a force! The question though, is the force within the compass, external to it, or both?
Thanks for these unfamiliar perspectives. I agree with you that conversion has nothing at all to do with "joining a cause or a party". So many do seem to understand it that way, though!
Enigmatic! ;)
Don't get me wrong, I don't know what everyone should do, but neither did they -- my major point of disagreement though is "throw away the raft?" I bet you were entirely empty inside.
I don't think "throw away the raft" is a Christian notion; more Buddhist. Perhaps the Christian would say "allow the raft to be supercharged".
Probably why Christianity was massively more successful, but everyone is human, everyone needs wants, hurts, and is corruptible. It's always about control, I'm no different. This place has become super interesting with all of the attention. I could, and maybe I am subtly inserting my own agenda. Maybe the Buddhists are right, maybe it's the Christians, maybe I'm a clever psychopath. I'm not nearly as interesting as you are, never forget that.
I don't know quite what to make of what you say here, Wosret. Are you "speaking in parables to the blind"?
Lol, you know, Diogenes used to like to walk around Athens during the day with a lamp, saying that he was looking for an honest man. The joke being, that they all had no idea how in the dark they were -- but to quote Roy Zimmerman, I'm not a cynic, I'm a hypocrite. Hypocrites believe in something.
X-) Good ol' Diogenes; he was an honest man; so honest, in fact, that apparently he used to masturbate in public.
Don't cynics believe their cynical thoughts? I would have thought it is the hypocrite that believes in nothing except his ability to deceive?
He only did that to upset everyone's precious sensibilities.
I meant belief more in the sense of hope, and acting with respect to that. Of course everyone believes things... way too many things...
True that! But tbh, I don't see anything much wrong with hope; provided you can justify it to yourself without self-deception.
"Maya (IAST: m?y?), literally "illusion" or "magic",[1][2] has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context. In ancient Vedic literature, M?y? literally implies extraordinary power and wisdom" - wiki
Not hard to find.
You find the same teaching in Zen as in Christian mysticism, they're all tapping into a common source, and then speaking about it in the framework of the spiritual culture in which they have been formed.
I could probably feel joy surrounded by inhumanity if I chose, but would you?
Your humanity is in sorrow, empathy, self-examination, honesty, and forgiveness. Not in feeling bliss while watching hell from the best seat in the house. If it depended on your ability, then you're a weakling.
That was an if then statement. What would be your justification for it then, other than inability to bear it? That's why you're deluded.
I don't know about that. Some people hurt others because they like it, or they want power and money, or their ideological belief requires it. Not everyone feels empathy, or cares about consequences.
The Calvinists make a good point about free will. How can God be sovereign and not in control of where people end up for eternity? You can't have it both ways.
Their problem is that the then have to reconcile the perfect good with God predestining who is damned.
I'm going to defend some smarter Calvinists, and not the ones like Fred Phelps. I'm going to avoid all the theological reasons the Calvinist may have (certain Bible verses can point to some type of elect) in favor of philosophical ones.
Calvinists might have a different conception of good then most people. They are probably of the divine command theory of good. They think all goodness is found, by its very nature and definition, in God. What we consider good might be very different from its actuality. Think of the allegory in the cave: the good we see is a shadow, and only through the light can we possibly understand good. Even though the Calvinist would claim to see some goodness, they would claim that the goodness is ultimately in God, of whom we cannot ultimately understand.
Also, most of them are probably some form of free will compatibilist- they think that the free will that gives us moral responsibility exists and this free will is compatible with determinism. Everything is preordained, but this preordination does not conflict with the moral responsibility necessary to send one to hell.
I think the Calvinists make a better argument regarding God's sovereignty (or omni-nature), but it still has the problem of redefining the good to be a non-human concept. Which you can do, but the cost is that the meaning shifts.
God is all-good. Meaning, God is all-good in a way we don't understand. Which could easily apply to a God who loves torture, or anything at all, since we're no longer dealing with human conceptions of good.
That's not a "good" solution to the problem of evil, and it's easy to parody with an evil God.
The good needs to be understood independent of God, or else you end saying nothing of meaningful about the good. Good ends up being whatever God happens to be, which could be anything.
Like the Platonic conception of good, we can understand it in a very real sense, but there is still a lot we do not understand. We may come to understand it one day, but in our current state, we do not.
Also, as I said in the initial thread regarding the evil god concept, the skeptical theist may admit that the argument holds weight. Even then, I wonder about the parallel actually holding. I can imagine a world where there is more evil and there is the potential for hope more easily than a world with free will and less moral evil.
Quoting Preston
Are you familiar with Berdyaev? If not, I think you would find him to also be a kindred spirit. Given the topic of God post-death-of-God, you might start with The Divine and the Human. It's one of his last works, but he got more lucid later on, so it's not a bad start. One of his themes is that Western society is going through a necessary period of "God-forsakenness". So the "death of God" is an important step towards what he sees as a third epoch of revelation: a revelation from Man towards God.
Quoting Preston
I always think of it like this: does a good parent shield their child from all possible negative experiences in the world? No, the parent trains the child to have autonomy, and through that autonomy, the child comes to experience the negative things in life through his/her own eyes. The parent can't prevent this, only train the child for it. From there, I guess the argument would be "God could prevent those things if he's all powerful". This has always rubbed me wrong. On a not very philosophical level, I think life teaches us that pain is a gift. "Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding." - Kahlil Gibran. This rings true on an existential level. The idea that God should prevent tragedy is short-sighted and weak-minded. It's another anthropomorphization of God as referee. Maybe the way we treat refs in sports is a good analogy for how we treat our projection of what we think God is...and when we complain, we're usually the spectators, not the athletes...
So no, God's potency isn't limited. That's almost a mis-application of terms, or a way of looking at God from the wrong angle. God doesn't have potency at all; God is love. God's love is androgynous, or equally male and female. The potency is counter-balanced by the tenderness.
Quoting Preston
Again, these arguments against omniscience to me are almost pointless. Why does it matter if God knows what I'll physically do next? It's another anthropomorphization. I think the idea of "All-Knowledge" is, like you say, tied to wisdom, not some comic book superpowers. Total and complete knowledge in a mystical sense means knowledge of the participatory side of reality, not the rational abstraction of it. Divine All-Knowledge is before/after rationality (or under/over it). This ties back to Berdyaev; imagine physical reality as a calcified objectivization of spirit, and the need for God's All-Knowledge to apply to that realm is null; All-Knowledge doesn't apply to a form of reality that's only an empty husk.
Well said.
That a good parent doesn't shield their child from all possible negative experiences doesn't entail that they don't shield their child from any possible negative experiences. Parents may allow their kids some leeway in getting into scrapes with each other and learning conflict resolution skills, but if one tries to stab the other with a pair of scissors, no "good parent" would fail to intervene, I should think.
(As a side note, those who are bothered by what they perceive to be the over-anthropomorphization of God probably shouldn't lean on parent/child analogies when explaining the nature of Man and God's relationship.)
One of my favorite works of philosophy is The Essence of Christianity. It argues that the essence of Christianity is humanism. But it also argues that miracle is at the heart of religion. Providence! As soon as the world becomes a lawful machine indifference to man, any kind of pantheistic residue of God is a dissipating vapor. Feuerbach interprets the myth of the creation of matter as the human wish to utterly dominate matter. God is our fantasy super-self. We want to have created Nature for our pleasure and be able to switch it off when it starts to hurt. If we abandon this fantasy of absolute control on our behalf and settle for increasing but limited control through technology, we switch into a more "Satanic" or tragic view of heroic man versus blind, massive bitch-Goddess Nature. But what then is the purpose of life? To get better, stronger, more conscious, freer. But to what end? It's as if the goal is a direction rather than a place. Up. More.
So what does getting stabbed with scissors represent in your analogy? Intense emotional pain, death, or what? All analogies break down eventually. In the second half of my paragraph which you didn't comment on, I explained more of my thoughts on the topic of God intervening in our pain. You seem to have critiqued my analogy without noticing that I addressed your point directly afterwards?
Quoting Arkady
"those"? Is this passive-aggressively aimed at me or something? >:O Anthropomorphization and analogy/metaphor are different. Analogies are self-conscious; when we use them, we know full well that they're ONLY analogies. An analogy is a way of imagining a theoretical idea, it just happens to not be a very popular mode of thinking in academic philosophy. Anthropomorphization, on the other hand, is unconscious; the Biblical analogy of God as Judge, for instance, is an anthropomorphization because it's so ingrained in Western and even Eastern Christendom's conception of God that it isn't even questioned, by and large. Anthropomorphization of God is corrosive because it shapes the very framework of how Christians imagine God; it closes off countless possibilities of wisdom.
I agree that God is wise, but that if God knew what I was going to do tomorrow, and God knew it completely and infallibly, I could do nothing else unless God's knowledge was wrong. So, my point was about placing limits on God, reasonable limits to preserve our freedoms and God's goodness. This might be where our revelations about freedom inform God about who God is.
Thank you.
Quoting Preston
But this is such a random, abstract analogy. Are you talking about actual God preventing his actual children from actually being raped? Or is it an analogy? Or what?
Quoting Preston
And this seems to be just the problem, that you feel the need to remain "on target" when constructing your own, personal thoughts about God. What does that even mean? Why should I consider your personal thoughts about God to be on par with my own?
Quoting Preston
How is God as a weak God panentheistic?
Quoting Preston
So you're placing limits on God him/herself, or on your personal concept of God? Or what?
Edit: sorry if my response comes off as cold or overly critical. Just read my responses as honest questions.
It represents nothing in particular: only a form of evil so severe that it would warrant the parent's (or "parent's") intervention.
There was nothing in the remainder of your paragraph which bolstered your point. You simply made unfounded assertions and ad homs against those who might disagree with you, calling them "weak-minded." You are free to believe that "pain is a gift," but that doesn't advance the discussion one bit, or speak to the problem of evil.
Not only against you: the anthropomorphization of God complaint arises with some regularity in these parts. X-)
Christians literally anthropomorphized their God (in the form of Jesus Christ), and even the God of the OT is routinely spoken of as having a will, desires, emotions (e.g. anger), etc. It's not merely a "Biblical analogy": it's what the Bible says, and what Jews and Christians believe. Christian eschatology involves God standing in judgment of mankind at the end of days, for instance.