Thought is a Power Far Superior to Any God
[The reason I have classed this post in "General Philosophy" is because it essentially aims to deal with the axiom of all philosophy, the being of thought. The notion of God is merely a vehicle used to make a point about thought. I do not believe this post belongs in the Philosophy of Religion section because it is not dealing with the formal arguments for religion, it is making a point about thought and thought is not religion.]
In the first instance, the very formation of the Phantom-Deity is itself the outcome of a thinking process, without this process there is no Phantom. The Deity is a formation of thought, it is not a concrete substance. No one denies the idea, but none can prove the substance. It is not the same when it comes to mountains and trees, there are even bones left over from the concept of Mark Twain.
The idea of God is vastly inferior to the concrete function of thought's power. The real question is why does one need God when one has thought? (Of course, the theist longs to credit his special deity with the virtue of bringing thought into being, only this is materially false, it was thought, coupled with the instability of fear, that birth God, it was not God who birthed thought).
When three doctors stand over a dying child desperately trying to save his life, are we really supposed to believe that God is in the room cheering the doctors on? "Come now, good chaps, just try a little harder, I know you can save him." This picture shatters our delusions of the concept, properly contextualizing it back to the fictitious realm of the idea.
Every qualitative invention brought into the world was brought by thought, technology is predicated on thought and technology is the key to human flourishing. When we say that thought is a power far superior to any God, we are not merely playing games with words, not merely inventing new Gods, we are referencing the concrete facts of human history. My guess is that most, if they were forced to choose, would pick technology over God, and in fact, this is precisely what the modern religious world has done.
Between the man of God and the man of thought there can be no contest, the man of God lives in the world of the man of thought. Religion has been around for thousands of years, it knew nothing of germs or particles, more importantly, it kept man groveling in the dust, clashing over petty ideals.
The bottom line is that thought is a power far superior to any concept of God, but this power is not neutral, it can be used to destroy the world or save the world. It is not merely the thinker's duty to think, but to learn how to use thought for the purpose of maximizing human quality.
"Thinking is higher than space and time." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
In the first instance, the very formation of the Phantom-Deity is itself the outcome of a thinking process, without this process there is no Phantom. The Deity is a formation of thought, it is not a concrete substance. No one denies the idea, but none can prove the substance. It is not the same when it comes to mountains and trees, there are even bones left over from the concept of Mark Twain.
The idea of God is vastly inferior to the concrete function of thought's power. The real question is why does one need God when one has thought? (Of course, the theist longs to credit his special deity with the virtue of bringing thought into being, only this is materially false, it was thought, coupled with the instability of fear, that birth God, it was not God who birthed thought).
When three doctors stand over a dying child desperately trying to save his life, are we really supposed to believe that God is in the room cheering the doctors on? "Come now, good chaps, just try a little harder, I know you can save him." This picture shatters our delusions of the concept, properly contextualizing it back to the fictitious realm of the idea.
Every qualitative invention brought into the world was brought by thought, technology is predicated on thought and technology is the key to human flourishing. When we say that thought is a power far superior to any God, we are not merely playing games with words, not merely inventing new Gods, we are referencing the concrete facts of human history. My guess is that most, if they were forced to choose, would pick technology over God, and in fact, this is precisely what the modern religious world has done.
Between the man of God and the man of thought there can be no contest, the man of God lives in the world of the man of thought. Religion has been around for thousands of years, it knew nothing of germs or particles, more importantly, it kept man groveling in the dust, clashing over petty ideals.
The bottom line is that thought is a power far superior to any concept of God, but this power is not neutral, it can be used to destroy the world or save the world. It is not merely the thinker's duty to think, but to learn how to use thought for the purpose of maximizing human quality.
"Thinking is higher than space and time." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Comments (40)
There you have it friend. A concept void of any substance, negation without ramification.
With you to here. I don't take issue with the phantom-deity ideas, but for me it doesn't add to (or detract from) the idea that the being of thought is my central motivation.
This is what all the evidence tells us.
Quoting Coben
Well now, arguments are based on premises, which are themselves assertions.
Maybe you should try interacting with the premises, as opposed to merely trying to characterize my position?
Hmm. Well, that may be, it wasn't exactly what I meant though. To be precise, the idea of the being of thought is my central motivation. Trust me, I've had 55 years to think about it, this one I have pinned down.
Thought. Not sure how that wasn't clear?
"This possibility to know God lays upon us the duty to do so..." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Perhaps for Hegel God and thought, although intially in apparent contradiction, become finally synthesised in Spirit?
VERY IMPORTANT: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis has nothing to do with Hegel's position. This is a distortion and gross simplification of his philosophy. Please do not feel defensive as I bring this up, I am not trying to attack you here friend, there is no possible way you could have known this. We are taught this error through online media and institutions, and Hegel is very intimidating to read. He reduced Goethe to silence when they had lunch together.
I do not know enough about Hegel's specific notions of theism to discourse on it with any kind of authority. One thing is certain, his idea of God would indeed be far more rational than any God produced through revelation. One of my friends has pointed out to me repeatedly in Hegel's writings that Hegel holds religious knowledge far lower than philosophical knowledge. And of course, he is correct. My friend also brings up the relevant fact that it would have been very hard for Hegel to dissent from Christianity in his time... so it is a most interesting question, because we read him repeatedly denigrating religious knowledge in the logic, if he was an atheist would we know it?
If you're interested in reading a good introduction on Hegel, one that also covers a great deal of ground in a short space, see Andy Blunden, Hegel for Social Movements.
Well it's just that you said you had been thinking about this for 55 years however you seem to be misusing the word thought .
As far as i understand the meaning of thought is form created in the mind, rather than the forms perceived through the five senses
And the imagination is the image-making power of the mind; the act of creating or reproducing ideally an object not previously perceived
In other words imagination is the power to create what has not been seen or known yet.
Which largely are akin to asking "why does one need a father when one can have a kid?"... of course, we'd just delve into a theological debate beyond this point so those are just my remarks on the subject presented.
Because technology had not, mainly because it did not really exist, provide answers to certain questions that arose as humans developed into civilized beings. And it has still not provided all of the answers man wants.
When science can say "The purpose of life is............" and provide adequate proof things might change.
Well, that seems a little too strident. English speaking idealist interpreters of Hegel such as McTaggart and Stace, different kinds of idealist admittedly, but no idiots either of them, find in Hegel's dialetic the "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" model. It's not the be all and end all of his philosophy of course and those interpreters might be wrong, but it seems too involved an exegitical issue to just discard it out of hand as you do.
As for Hegel's theism, if it exists, we can certainly agree that it is very much more sophisticated than any acceptance of a revealed Christian religion, and for sure given his context he might have felt obliged to tow a Lutheran line in his everyday life even if he had no real Christian faith. The quotation I gave comes from his lectures on history, and in that work he takes revealed religion as simply a starting point.
I understood that reference.
It doesn't matter if the Pope says it, this is not in Hegel. Citation please? See Hegel Myths and Legends by Jon Stewart.
This is a false analogy. While you are right about thought having a very bland and pathetic dimension to it, in contrast to the ever shifting idea of God... claws and fangs exist, Cat Deities do not.
I don't troll often but this thread was just too much for me.
I think that thought has the power to dictate any narrative, whether it be to argue that thought itself is the superior power to any god or the opposite. As thought answers to nothing but itself.
It does indeed, but it is greater than this. It has the capacity to transcend narratives, even to correct itself.
We agree that it can dictate any narrative, thus, Quoting JerseyFlight this too and the opposite. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm pretty sure I do, but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by opposite?
That thought does not have the capacity to transcend narratives, this is something one could think differently about. Without any rules, can pretty much just assert whatever right?
I suppose emotions could transcend narratives, but it's damn unlikely, and certainly not the way to achieve the optimum of this result. You will not catch me arguing as you have here, I don't even see the point in it.
Thought is being 'I think, therefore I am'. Being is God. The power of thought is God, in our minds. When the mind thinks it moves through God as a fish moves through the sea.
So you are suggesting that something invented...is invented, or a "product of thought.
Okay...I guess that makes sense, but why even bother pointing that out. You are essentially saying "A fictional character is a fictional character."
Then you go on to say something else rather obvious...that without the thought, the "invented something" would not exist. In other words, without the "thoughts" Mark Twain invested in Huckleberry Finn...there would be no Huckleberry Finn"
Also okay. But...what is the point?
Finally, you seem to suggest that, therefore, no kids who do the kinds of things that Huck did...exist?
Wow! Bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?
I don't think one can flatly state that God is an invention of the mind or a mere thinking process. This is a proclamation that needs to be justified.
That is not the argument, the argument is that there is no concretion to the substance, and the idea is itself entirely contingent (and proceeds from) man's symbolic structure, the same cannot be said about the matter you ate for breakfast.
Don't get angry. That makes you want to make word salads that are undigestable.
You WERE saying that a fictional character is a fictional character.
And I was agreeing with you. They are.
??? :cool:
"...the same cannot be said about the matter you ate for breakfast."
Seemed like a zinger. Maybe I was wrong.
Yeah, well Hegel was wrong.
Try this.
Quoting JerseyFlight
The question I have about 'thought's power' is like I would have for 'writing's power' or 'speech's power'. Certainly, h. sapiens has the power of thought, speech and writing. But you can think, write and speak all manner of nonsense; just because you can think, doesn't mean you can think well. Loosers, lunatics, fanatics, dictators and criminals all think, speak and write, but that doesn't really add up to much in their case.
Quoting JerseyFlight
‘He’s only ‘right’ insofar as I agree with him. In all those matters in which I disagree with him, he’s definitely wrong.’
Would that be right?
No.