You lack of reading does not constitute my need to explain it to you.
As they say in Computer Science, RTFM.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Available at every library and the internet.
The subject you want to become educated on is called Metaphysics. Been around a long time. A lot of worthy authors in the past and present.
Originally posted by ClimacusIt's a lot closer than these posts about Santa Claus.
Well, it is a bit new-age obscurantistic to say that Aristotle got it right. And the concept of the Prime Mover is elaborated in Metaphysica, by the way.
Did you happen to read Sigmund Freud's "Future of an Illusion" or "Totem and Taboo"? They were also pretty fascinating.
Thanks for the Metaphysica note. I think I could benefit from a re-read myself.
Originally posted by serigadoI just cant win!!!!!!!!!!😵
God cannot change the laws of the universe. Prayer does not change a thing, except making you feel a lot better IF you believe in it. But is doesn't change a thing.
People must realize this: there are about 6 billion Gods, only in planet Earth, and each one of them has the power to decide it's own fate. (within the limits of the laws of physics). Instead of praying, open your eyes and do something useful to yourself and the ones you care.
Originally posted by mdhallCloser to ... Truth? In a way religion and science function on a same level with regard to subjectivity, don't they? The Truth is posited so that it is external to the subject. In other words, both religion and science serve as master-signifiers (in lacanese) providing subjects with something Transcendent - greater than ordinary things of the world - to identify with. And inability to explain one's own position, or the nature of it, is nothing but a sign for the subject of how Great and Sublime the Truth the subject relies on actually is. This is where Aristotle and Jesus Christ shake hands...
It's a lot closer than these posts about Santa Claus.
Did you happen to read Sigmund Freud's "Future of an Illusion" or "Totem and Taboo"? They were also pretty fascinating.
Thanks for the Metaphysica note. I think I could benefit from a re-read myself.
Freud's metapsychology is something I want to get to know better. I've read some passages from Totem and Taboo and the whole of Civilization and Its Discontents. I'm currently interested in Lacan's "return to Freud" - a weird return by the way - and in applying psychoanalysis to political and ideological (critical) analysis.
Originally posted by ClimacusLacan, eh? I'll have to pick that up.
Closer to ... Truth? In a way religion and science function on a same level with regard to subjectivity, don't they? The Truth is posited so that it is external to the subject. In other words, both religion and science serve as master-signifiers (in lacanese) providing subjects with something Transcendent - greater than ordinary things of the world - to ide ...[text shortened]... e way - and in applying psychoanalysis to political and ideological (critical) analysis.
I would challenge your posit that Science and Religion are operating from different perspectives in regards to the elusive "Truth".
For example, if we were to examine a Rock.
From a Scientific stand point me must strictly treat that rock as an objective reality. It has concrete properties and physics will react to it in a predictable way.
From a Religious stand point the rock is part of God's creation, and only needs to obey God's Will (ala William of Occam). The fact that it happens to obey Physics today is no guarantee that God's Will may change at any moment.
So, then there's the natural tie in now with Quantum Physics as a way to explain Divine intervention in a quasi-physics way, but I really find the whole business dubious at best. Mostly a lot of confusion over QP makes for some really muddled writings (ex: The Elegant Universe).
I am not sure I followed you on this:
Religion/Science = Master-Signifiers: providing transcendent subjects.
What do you mean?
Because, from my perspective, Science provides no subjects at all, but merely attempts to function as a variety of methods with which to examine subjects in the world or universe.
And I would separate Religion from Theology, because they are extremely different to me. One is a spiritual pursuit of knowledge and one is the modern day shift of churches into Starbucks's...
"I'd like a vente sugar-free vanilla non-fat sermon please."
Originally posted by mdhallI must say that it's pretty unclear to me too what I mean. But I think we're not meaning the same thing with the concept of 'subject'. It's just that 'human being' has different connotations, I think. Maybe in a hegelian way: 'consciousness'?
Lacan, eh? I'll have to pick that up.
I would challenge your posit that Science and Religion are operating from different perspectives in regards to the elusive "Truth".
For example, if we were to examine a Rock.
From a Scientific stand point me must strictly treat that rock as an objective reality. It has concrete properties and physics will react t ...[text shortened]... s into Starbucks's...
"I'd like a vente sugar-free vanilla non-fat sermon please."
Yes, exactly: science MUST treat a rock as a part of the objective reality. It cannot but treat a rock, subjects ("consumers" in today's hegemonial vocabulary) etc.. But we, as particular consciousnesses, don't have access to this objectivity as such which is, funnily enough, the standpoint belonging to God. This is one way to articulate the idea of "science as ideology"; it's coinciding with its apparent negation, religion. Both are empty signifiers in the end of the day. In politico-ideological practice they function in a similar way (as master-signifiers).
I'm pretty fascinated by the evolution of Human consciousness.
When we're born, everything is experienced through our senses. First Person. As we grow, we quickly pick up Mom and Dad as the Second Person perspectives in our lives. Later we learn we have been attached to several groups (race, sex, economic class, language, nationality) and now we discuss Third Persons in the Us|Them divisions.
Now, most people don't ever move beyond that Us|Them division.
That's why debates around religions and nationalities are so fierce.
In a Third Person perspective with a Fundamentalist metaphysical background. Us = Humans, and Them = Animals or worse (infidels).
Them's can be tortured, killed, raped, whatever.
It's the general terror of the 3rd Person perspective.
Please don't bother explaining to them they're mammals and should treat all other living beings with respect, because they'll probably just shoot you.
From there, some can evolve into a Fourth, Fifth, etc perspectives and have increasingly evolved ways of looking at things.
Something to think about. Most of it comes from Ken Wilber.
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopif a believer is going through a bad time...
if a believer is going through a bad time god is testing them, if they ask and don't receive god is teaching them, if they do ask and receive god is wonderful....
god has a good deal with this wouldnt you say?
Highly subjective. What is this "bad time?" Is it being described as such by the believer, or by those within the same's periphery? If by the believer, then he is reaping what he sows, so to speak, a direct result of his own thoughts and/or actions.
...god is testing them...
God does test believers, but only those with the reserves obtained through spiritual growth to withstand any onslaught of pressure. Those discussed above (who would characterize the situation as a bad time) are being punished--- not tested. Their attention is sought to get them back on the right track. Pressure is applied in order to do this very thing.
For those whose every situation is simply another opportunity to do as commanded, i.e., grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, don't have 'bad times.' Rather, every obstacle, every setback is yet another chance for further growth. Their happiness is not based upon situations, but on the reality of truth.
god has a good deal with this wouldnt you say?
Once you realize the nature and character of God, you will know how true your words are, however misplaced in context.