The Couch

ONE vs MANY: Deciding on the Supreme Ultimate

Comments on ONE vs MANY: Deciding on the Supreme Ultimate

Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 09/05/07 - 2:20 PM:
Subject: ONE vs MANY: Deciding on the Supreme Ultimate
What do yall think about the absolute metaphysical condition of reality, relative to our position as locus points of consciousess or intentional energy?

The options are:

Reality is One.
Reality is Many.


Reality is One

This suggests several consequences. For one, there is an Absolute metaphysical condition beyond which nothing can penetrate, absorb, transcend, and which is the ultimate foundation for all existence, possibility, appearance and form. It suggests that 'truth' is a metaphysical value, and not merely a sematic value, since there is one and only one ultimate foundation, which corresponds to a classical bivalent axiology (A/-A). Or does it...? This depends on our ability to apprehend this One Supreme Ultimate foundation, and to adequately express it in language. Insofar as saying 'Reality is One' expresses this condition, it suffices that any statemnt asserting anything to the contrary would be absolutely wrong in all belief systems. Reality itself becomes the final arbitr of truth.

Reality is Many

This suggests that the experience of reality is the metaphysical condition of being a locus point of consciousness. There is no final, Supreme Ultimate condition that corresponds to the term 'reality'. There is no perfect absolute which is the final arbitr of all things. Rathr, there are as many appearances of 'reality' as there are coherent points of consciousness. Thus, truth is semantic, relating to the internal consistency of a belief set and its correspondence with the subjective conditions of experience, but does not or cannot correspond to an absolute metaphysical condition valid for all possible perceivrs. The conscious agent is the final arbitr of 'truth'.


The formr seems to suggest an objective ontologically perceivr independent reality, which is build on a single absolute condition that is true for all possible points of view.

The lattr seems to suggest a subjective, ontologically dependent reality that is constructd and formd by each individual consciousness, and for which truth is at best a measure of the internal coherence of said point of view. Unless there is a being whose point of view contains all possible points of view, then there is no 'ultimate' coherence that unifies 'all' reality'


I think of this as applicable to spiritual truths. These days the spiritual is oftn set at odds against so-calld secular or naturalist views, as increasingly the lattr are seen to reveal the 'true face of reality'. And as we all are familiar, religions are at odds with each othr ovr ultimate principles. Christians dismiss Buddhists are idolaters and Muslims reject Christians as deceivd. Diffrnt strains of each religion fight against each othr on doctrinal grounds, asserting that theirs is the 'real final truth'.

Now, if reality is ONE, then there should be, for all persons, for all doctrines, for all possible points of view, only one single truth about the ultimate nature of reality, and, insofar as religions aim at attaining this, all religions could be judgd in terms of it, and evaluatd as 'correct' or 'incorrect' to the degree that they correspond or do no correspond to this ultimate reality. Hence, Buddhism could be shown to be wrong, Islam could be shown to be wrong, and Zorosterarianism could be shown to be right. Or, all views could be shown to be inadequate, containing only partial truths. The idea is, though, that it would be possible to formulate one single absolute truth about reality, valid for all possible points of view at all times. And, if this view could be accessd by a rigorous method, it could be available to all people at all times, who can practice the method, and would show all othr methods as being inadequate.

But, if reality is MANY, and each world is a construct peculiar to the consciousness that perceives it, there is no possible way of deciding between religions, beliefs, or 'facts', as having absolute import, as each of these will only work or not work within a coherent point of view that defines the individual's experience. Thus, it could be that both the Christian view and the view of Pure Land Buddhists is 'true' relative to each individual that constructs that view, and hence, constructs hesh reality according to that view, and moreso, true relative to the degree of internal coherence the view contains.


Now, there is something tempting about suggesting that yes indeed all views are constructd in this mannr, that views themselves define individual universes, but when I think on this I am temptd to imagine them all slipping away towards a final absolute Point in which their individual 'truths' are absorbd, integratd, or annihilatd. Is that my personal bias? Or can we decide between these two metaphysical conditions?

In spirituality, if no view has all the truth, why practice any view rigorously? Or, if only one view contains truth, how do we discovr it?

thoughts?

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 09/05/07 - 2:24 PM:

A second, relatd question is whethr our current scientific method, or one that will descend from it, simply is the method we possess for attaining knowledge of the absolute metaphysical condition of reality? Should we look to ‘science’ to show us truth? Or are there othr paths of revelation?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 09/06/07 - 1:42 PM:

Its intrsting. Christians, for example, believe that the only path to salvation is in belief--just belief mind you--in the person they call Jesus Christ. For them, no othr path is correct, and all alternatives lead to hell. Thus, Christianity, especially universalizd as Catholicism, is the highr form of spirituality.

Buddhists, otoh, believe that only the Buddha's dharma is the path to final liberation, and that while othr paths may prod one along the way, none but the Buddha's Great Vehicle will result in Nirvana. Othr religions fall short, because they only go so far as to project heavens, which are in Buddhism, merely anothr extended form of delusion.

Buddhism, by virtue of metaphysics, places itself above Abramic basd religions. Christianity and Islam postulate a heaven realm where the faithful go post-death, there to exist in perpetuity worshipping a single divine being. For these two, this existence in heaven is the highest form of being possible, as nothing transcends God. At least, thats the idea one might get, insofar as God is conceivd as an absolute being. But Buddhism suggests that beyond any possible heaven lies the ultimate extinction of Nirvana, about which nothing can be said, but from which no soul returns. Buddhas that reach Nirvana do no come back to our realm, evr. But they might, on the way there, pass through any numbr of heavenly realms, perhaps studying with myriad divine beings being worshippd by faithful followrs whose faith alone bootstrappd them into heaven.

Now, Christians will dismiss Buddha's dharma and Nirvana, likey by suggesting the void is somehow a deception of demonic forces. But when we look at the big picture from the buddhist perspective, its hard to see how Christianity can come off as anything othr than an inferior vehicle. Placing the Abramic God as a divine being who took a special intrst in one group of people, and promotd itself to the level of heavenly king, but still ultimately within the realm of delusion, seems to make a lot of sense. It echos the gnostic idea that the creator God, the demiurge, was an angry, explosive force operating undrneath the level of ultimate reality. Hence, to attain true gnosis, we must eventually move beyond Yaweh towards the Absolute.

Question is, is there any way possible to decide between these claims?

One says, 'this is highest', anothr says 'no, the highest is not highest, that is why it is highest (it is beyond high and low)'. Is there a way to objectively evaluate these claims?

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 09/06/07 - 1:48 PM:

Plus, if appearances are conditiond by the beings to whom they appear, if reality is MANY, it is possible for Muslims to go to Paradise, Christians to go to Heavan, Norsemen to go to Valhalla, and Pure Land Buddhists to go to the Pure Land. But, if reality is MANY, then none of these places are any bettr or highr or more real than the othrs. Howevr, if these are all illusions, ultimately, as Buddhism propr claims, then reality is, aftr all, ONE, as there is but one ultimate final Absolute about which naught can be taught.
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 09/06/07 - 4:06 PM:

This is hard to think about. These conditions (relative and absolute reality) don't appear to be mutually exclusive. I lean toward the notion of an absolute which can't be accessed except by the vehicle and tools with which we have been endowed with. In order to see the larger truth (scientific truths perhaps) we become coordinating social organisms out of which a consensual paradigm (modern myth or narrative) guides us. There is no authority to prescribe an absolute tool (construct of reality). We can work together to make it look like there is an absolute some such thing but then the species itself might just be one reality among others (and these others can't be accessed or just don't exist by virtue of our being human).


Excuse my B.S.
__________

The face of truth is normative (it tells us what should be done) while its core is positive (you must take a stand before any truth can be found). So those who see it have taken a stand; yet, if you exist, you have taken a stand, if not consciously, unconsciously.

Nothing that exists is not true and there is nothing that does not exist: every variation and every variation of the grasp of those variations exists (not in this universe or for this species in the way that it is conscious).

Ever thing diminishes in one direction. Every thing is built up in another.



Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 09/07/07 - 4:40 PM:

M.M. wrote:
Plus, if appearances are conditiond by the beings to whom they appear, if reality is MANY, it is possible for Muslims to go to Paradise, Christians to go to Heavan, Norsemen to go to Valhalla, and Pure Land Buddhists to go to the Pure Land. But, if reality is MANY, then none of these places are any bettr or highr or more real than the othrs. Howevr, if these are all illusions, ultimately, as Buddhism propr claims, then reality is, aftr all, ONE, as there is but one ultimate final Absolute about which naught can be taught.


I would think that if these realities are chosen (that is we can say that everyone goes through the exit they believe in and so create it, knowingly or unknowingly) then these "realities" are real as real can be.

Just watched a David Cronenberg movie, ExisTenz, last night which made me think of the worlds of Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly and The Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, also some of J.G. Ballard's s-f fiction, also Memento. The characters in the film buy fast-food from a place called Perky Pat's which was a company brand in the book The Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. A Perky Pat Layout was the model life you buy upon which you projected yourself by taking drugs (so you experience a V.R. like world that is better and more satisfying than the real one you inhabit). I think it was an indication (in ExisTenz) that they were already inside the simulation (and we are forever in doubt of what constitutes the real world).

The worlds these authors present are schizoid or psychotic (what is taken as priori is questionable); where there may be fundamental rules to the structure of the universe our human condition is so incredibly variable, ephemeral, subjectively based, that even though we can grasp architecture and processes of this existence in theory and usefully apply them, the human element is far too complex to prohibit itself entirely (take absolute control) -- of course I assume a degree of subjective satisfaction with the answer, which is my problem.

_________

Why shouldn't we toss our faith into the garbage and go out kite flying? I can't tell whether I feel good or bad (why is this?). Just moving my thumb is... inspiring -- talk about schizoid Extra Terrestrials. They are the bums on our Street (our neighbors too).
isa
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 38
isa
Posted 09/08/07 - 11:42 AM:

How do we know there is "an absolute metaphysical condition of reality"? Just my humble opinion, but what if nothing is beyond nature? Some say we humans are really "spiritual beings, having a physical experience", yet we all must submit to the laws of nature. If we jump of a cliff, we'll still die, regardless of what personal beliefs we hold. Although we can never really remove the filter of our senses and apprehend reality as it "truly is"; nature does hit back, so to speak.
Even if there was a god, it seems this god couldn't be a purely spiritual entity, because it must be able to operate on matter, for example, creating this world. Perhaps, just like a musician playing an instrument, god created this world. For music, there needs to be a creative consciousness AND an instrument. If there was a god, his instrument would be nature. So, perhaps nothing would be beyond nature, not even divine expression.
So, if I had to pick one of the views below, I'd go with Reality is One. Understanding ultimate reality would be understanding nature in its entirety, if such a thing is possible.
Just some thoughts, sorry for the digression,
isa
mixinman7
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Location: usa, OR

Total Topics: 4
Total Comments: 141
Posted 09/11/07 - 11:03 PM:

reality is one: get real.

religion is a delusion, perhaps a mass propaganda. what i understand the true intent of the OP to be is to ask a common question - is this the true way, or are there other possibilities (with regards to conflicting beliefs).

what leads rationally bound people to believe, or at least seek a religion is unexplained phenomena. If unexplained phenomena were given naturalistic, maybe scientific explanations, the need for any religion would weary with such people.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 09/16/07 - 4:52 PM:

isa wrote:
Some say we humans are really "spiritual beings, having a physical experience", yet we all must submit to the laws of nature. If we jump of a cliff, we'll still die, regardless of what personal beliefs we hold. Although we can never really remove the filter of our senses and apprehend reality as it "truly is"; nature does hit back, so to speak.
Even if there was a god, it seems this god couldn't be a purely spiritual entity, because it must be able to operate on matter, for example, creating this world. Perhaps, just like a musician playing an instrument, god created this world. For music, there needs to be a creative consciousness AND an instrument. If there was a god, his instrument would be nature. So, perhaps nothing would be beyond nature, not even divine expression.

nicely stated!

NL wrote:
Just watched a David Cronenberg movie, ExisTenz, last night which made me think of the worlds of Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly and The Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, also some of J.G. Ballard's s-f fiction, also Memento.

just saw memento last night & posted an analysis of it up on my website.

NL wrote:
These conditions (relative and absolute reality) don't appear to be mutually exclusive.

i agree. i'd like to share an alan watts quote, from "the book: on the taboo against knowing who you are".

alan watts wrote:

...the mistake in the beginning was to think of solids and space as two different things, instead of as two aspects of the same thing. The point is that they are different but inseparable, like the front end and rear end of a cat. Cut them apart, and the cat dies. Take away the crest of the wave, and there is no trough. [...] Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in the fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns around and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect. This absurd and confusing gobbledygook comes from his failure to see that the head and the tail go together; they are all one cat. The cat wasn't born as a head which, sometime later, caused a tail; it was born all of a piece, a head-tailed cat. Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.

causality lessons aside, to me this breaks down the whole problem of trying to decide which of the constituent parts is "true" or "right". even assuming that there is one supreme being which is conscious of everything (let's call it god, might as well), which i do believe, it doesn't mean that those who believe otherwise are wrong. each individual perception is part of the whole; the contrast of one belief gives identity and meaning to the next. it's like asking if the hand is true or is the foot true? is the heart true or is the head? they have different roles; they are part of the same body. of course, sometimes the problem arises of parts being in conflict within the same body; like a cancer or a psychosis. i believe that things which happen at the individual level are fractal reflections of the experience of the supreme being. a psychotic individual expresses god's psychosis. individuals in discord with each other expresses god's discord within itself. a cancer may act upon an individual as well as upon a society and therefore acts as god's cancer.

i do believe in the existence of many realities, some which are shared with others, some which are not, each of which are valid. is it possible to transcend our limited perspectives to see things as a whole? we already do, little by little, on a day-to-day basis. our experiences throughout life gradually help to acquaint us with the bigger picture. entropy is a process of breaking down barriers which our bodies may experience as aging, but our consciousness may experience as transcendence.

smiling facelib
isa
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 38
isa
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 1:42 AM:

You can't really argue with religion. Yet with philosophy you can always make an argument or counter-argument. Without philosophy what would we do? laughing
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 5:33 AM:

Perhaps consider this, davidwayne.

All rational cognition is either material and concerned with some object, or formal and occupied only with the form of the understanding and of reason itself and with the universal rules of thinking in general, without distinction of objects. Formal philosophy is called logic, whereas material philosophy, which has to do with determinate objects and the laws to which they are subject, is in turn divided into two. For these laws are either laws of nature or laws of freedom. The science of the first is called physics, that of the other ethics; the former is also called the doctrine of nature, the latter the doctrine of morals.

Logic can have no empirical part, that is, no part in which the universal and necessary laws of thinking would rest on grounds taken from experience; for in that case it would not be logic, that is, a canon for the understanding of reason, which holds for all thinking and which must be demonstrated. On the other hand natural as well as moral philosophy can each have its empirical part, since the former must determine laws of nature as an object of experience, the latter, laws of the human being's will insofar as it is affected by nature- the first as laws in accordance with which everything ought to happen, while still taking into account the conditions under which it very often does not happen.

All philosophy insofar as it is based on grounds of experience can be called empirical; but insofar as it sets forth its teachings simply from a priori principles it can be called pure philosophy. When the latter is merely formal it is called logic; but if it is limited to determinate objects of the understanding it is called metaphysics.

enjoy! smiling face

beans
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 5:47 AM:

I should add that most religious doctrine doesn't attempt logic, only moral philosophy. But many philosophers believe that we should do unto others as we would have them do, but not in those words and not because God said so. Rather, they have reasoned, empirical beliefs as to why that maxim should be followed that stand up in the absence of a supreme deity's command. But either way, the conclusion is the same. Religion draws on the great weight of experience; hundreds of generations observing their world and their relationships, adding to a constantly revised and revisited record that becomes that religions central text. Either through philosophical reason or experience, the same conclusion is arrived at.

beans
isa
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 38
isa
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 9:26 AM:

Some religions may have philosophical aspects, but they also have irrational aspects.
If I say "the color purple makes me happy," how can anyone disclaim that? If someone says, for example, "Jesus is Lord," how can I refute them? It's a different kind of beast, in my opinion.
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 11:56 AM:

That's true, isa. Many aspect of religious dogma is devoid of rational philosophy. Although you can demonstrate that you are made happy by the colour purple, so that rates higher on the philometer. smiling face


Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 12:09 PM:

[Nice post beans.

beans wrote:


All rational cognition is either material and concerned with some object, or formal and occupied only with the form of the understanding and of reason itself and with the universal rules of thinking in general, without distinction of objects. Formal philosophy is called logic, whereas material philosophy, which has to do with determinate objects and the laws to which they are subject, is in turn divided into two. For these laws are either laws of nature or laws of freedom. The science of the first is called physics, that of the other ethics; the former is also called the doctrine of nature, the latter the doctrine of morals.


I dont know of any 'laws of freedom'. Perhaps this is a new science...? I think youve presentd a false dichotomy here beans, as there is no way physics and ethics should be contrastd as equivalent levels of inquiry. Ethics does not emply scientific methods, nor is it empirical in the sense that physics is. We do no go about dropping babies from the leaning towr and testing the moral value of their splattring on the ground. No, ethics, such as it is, if empirical, is merely descriptive, an anthropological study of how people do act, not how they ought to act. For there is no supreme OUGHT that all persons need follow, no supreme GOOD that all persons need adhere to. Whereas gravity, such as it is, will always operate on a person who walks off a cliff.

I would outline things like this:

We have formal logic, which defines for us the transcendental conditions of thought, that is, of appearances. Logic, formalizd into a symbolic system, becomes a useful tool for explicitly and intentionally organizing items of knowledge, ie, beliefs.

We have axio-logic, which is the science of value, that contextualizes formal logic, bridging the gap between pure formalism and experience. Howevr, axiology--like logic--does not determine a subject mattr, but rathr only specifies that given such a subject, these x,y,z relationships hold.

The most immediate application of axiology is ethics. An ethical system defines a specific formulation of an axiological system, a conrete formulation where the values take on actual qualities (not merely formal ones). Ethics is practical axiology. But, there are many othr equal sciences at this level, such as aesthetics.

When logic turns from reflection to induction, it moves into the sphere of the empirical and becomes what we know as natural science. The world, in this case, actualizes the values of the logical system, and careful observation and testing replaces strict rigorous deductive transformations. These are applied latr, in the analysis phase of the scientific method, which is logic applied to the study of empirical phenomena. Hence, natural science is practical logic.

The diffrnce is that domains like ethics ans aesthetics deal with arbitrarily assignd values, whereas physics deals with actuals at the outset. In physics we describe an object, then take hold of it and break it to pieces to see how its made. In ethics we describe an event or action, then compare it to the ultimate moral value that we have adoptd. But, whereas in physics, if we find x to be true when we take apart the object, we will likely find it true for all objects of the class, if we find y to hold for some act relative to a moral standard, it is not only likely but almost assurd that there is a context where the act does not take the same value relative to the standard we've adoptd. That is, ethics is not universalizable except by force--by forcing evry person to adhere to it. Physics, otoh, is universal by nature, and nothing more need be done to ensure that the same effect will be observd whethr dropping balls from the Empire State building or the leaning towr.

beans wrote:
On the other hand natural as well as moral philosophy can each have its empirical part, since the former must determine laws of nature as an object of experience, the latter, laws of the human being's will insofar as it is affected by nature- the first as laws in accordance with which everything ought to happen, while still taking into account the conditions under which it very often does not happen.


Unfortunately 'human beings' will' is not universal in the way that chemistry or physics relations are universal. We can always point to some ethical value and describe the practical need which causd it to be adoptd in a specific context. Meanwhile, water turns to ice when the temperature drops.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 12:31 PM:

isa wrote:
Some religions may have philosophical aspects, but they also have irrational aspects.
If I say "the color purple makes me happy," how can anyone disclaim that? If someone says, for example, "Jesus is Lord," how can I refute them? It's a different kind of beast, in my opinion.


A religious system is irrational if and only if is contains two or more contradictory beliefs that cannot be simulteneously held in the belief set without compromising its integrity, ie, causing incoherence and inconsistency (in any practical applicaiton), and we assume that the base logic is not paraconsistent. See, we need to be careful to define the form of logic employd, since a paraconsistent system can accept contradictions, and hence, may be a way for an apparently 'irrational' religious system to stand firm.

But you might mean 'irrational' in the sense of 'unexplainable' like the othr recent thread by mixinman, such as 'Thor threw that meteorite to earth'--where the explanation may be reasonable according to a belief set that sees Thor as liking to throw meteors at the earth, but unreasonable for a paradigm that requires more stringent measures to determine causal relationships.

Now, you may think that 'purple makes me happy' but Ill wagr that a good psychotherapist will be able to break it down for you and show you how and why that really isnt strictly true, despite your perception. Thus, it can be disclaimd, as it were.

If you say 'Jesus is lord' all I need to do is show you a superior lord, one that cannot be transcended, or demonstrate that your statement is not valid given your premises. But, if the premises themselves are nothing more than the bare statement that 'Jesus is lord', and this statement grounds all furthr assertions, I would not call this set of higgledypiggeldy beliefs a religious system. Superstition is perhaps evn too pretigious a term for this form of dogmatism.

But most religions are not like this. They flow from premises. They flow from interpretations of events, evn of visions etc. Except for flying spagetti monstrs and such, religions are not creatd arbitrarily, but arise, like morals and politics, as a response to real needs of human beings to express some feature of their awe, wondr, compasison, and so on.

And I dont think philosophrs denounce religion. It depends who you read. Although we may get this idea post-Kant, as religion was intentionally placd in the realm of the thing-in-itself. But, if we take a logical approach, we can diffrntiate true religious systems from irrational dogmatism.

Besides which, Islam refutes 'Jesus is lord', Judaism refutes 'Jesus is lord', Buddhism refutes 'Jesus is lord' (if taken to the extreme and not considrd 'lord of..' some relative lessr sphere).

Which brings us back to the topic again. These beliefs seem to refute each othr, but can we decide between them? Evn aftr we get rid of inconsistent systems, how can we make a choice between, say, only the rational religious systems? Do we need to validate religion against natural science? Or is there a level at which, like morals, religion is just a choice--a way of defining how we live in the here and now, of associating ourselves explicitly with our values? Or will we be subject to a religious law, a law of karma?

8)
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 1:34 PM:

Hi Midnight_Monk,

How about this for a rational moral absolute;

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.

?

beans wink
e.
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: UK

Total Topics: 142
Total Comments: 1081
Avatar e.
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 3:15 PM:

beans wrote:
Hi Midnight_Monk,

How about this for a rational moral absolute;

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.

?

beans wink


Ahh, good old Immanuel Kant.

e. smiling face
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 4:26 PM:

Y'know, Kants maxim is kindof silly when u think about it. I mean, lets be real, any choice we make to do this or that thing is NOT going to become a universal and necessary pattrn of unfolding events. Nevr.

So we are left asking 'why should we act on the basis of this maxim, which cannot evr be fulfilld in reality?'

And the answer is...
isa
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 38
isa
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 6:04 PM:

Excellant posts, Midnight Monk.

Yet, I've never encountered a religion that presented itself in a systematic, argument-proof fashion. If you asked the majority of people to detail the premises of their religion and to give logical proofs for each of their beliefs, I think they would look at you like you've gone mad. Many believers I've encountered are of the 'flying-spagetti monster' variety; they hold their beliefs merely because they enjoy doing so. There's nothing wrong with this, but its a shadow of real philosophy.

For real philosophy to occur, the people involved need to be capable of being swayed by whomever presents the most elegent argument. If the door is already closed, philosophy is dead. Thus, it is impossible to argue with religion. There's simply no ground to do so.

Perhaps, in one sense, Reality is many, for there is no truth that has the power to sway all people.
isa
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 38
isa
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/17/07 - 6:14 PM:

I realized my post below sounded too harsh. There are many extraordinary people who practise religion, no attack intended. Sorry for this.
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/18/07 - 1:04 AM:

e, you %$*^$#!!!! Yes you're most learne'd, but can't you let Midnight_Monk succeed at arguing with Kant without having to face a giant? He's doing great, recognising the quality of the passage from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and giving it heaps. I was about two posts from letting him know, ya $#*&^#!!! wink

I was looking forward to seeing what davidwayne made of it all...

Edited by beans on 09/18/07 - 1:23 AM
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/18/07 - 1:15 AM:

Midnight_Monk,

Yes, as e so exactly points out, you've been arguing with Emmanuel Kant. I agree with you that the fundamentals of rational thought may not be written in stone. Just that there can be doubt, leaves room for doubt. And I had no intension of passing Kant off as my own work (I figure a verbatim copy of a two hundred year old text gives me room to say "get real" about plagiarism). Excellent reply to Kant, MM.

The next time the quality of my posts jump up, you'll have to ask who you're talking to! grin

beans
e.
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Location: UK

Total Topics: 142
Total Comments: 1081
Avatar e.
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/18/07 - 2:45 AM:

beans wrote:
e, you %$*^$#!!!! Yes you're most learne'd, but can't you let Midnight_Monk succeed at arguing with Kant without having to face a giant? He's doing great, recognising the quality of the passage from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and giving it heaps. I was about two posts from letting him know, ya $#*&^#!!! wink

I was looking forward to seeing what davidwayne made of it all...


Beans,

OOPS!

e.
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/18/07 - 11:35 AM:

laughing
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.