I’m pretty good at making sense of posts, and this one isn’t processing well in me.
The idea here is that platonic forms can be proven, and they can be proven to exist regardless of consciousness existing. They are a category of not being affected.
Clearly, a supreme being is defined as conscious.
Let’s understand further what knowledge is: a particular state of knowing.
Like I linked to prior, knowing that you DON’T know something is a state of knowledge, very common in fact. If a being doesn’t have this common knowledge about everything it knows, than it can be said to not possess all knowledge. To be everywhere, lacks the knowledge of what it’s like to not be everywhere, and you require presence for potence.
James is wrong on two things here:
Affectence
The Omni states he declared
I’ve seen a lot of knowledge and power in my life, and it takes a lesser person to interpret it like James …
A Supreme being and/or Platonic forms as defined, what is meant by a nominal form of understanding. Whixjndoes not mean minimal in this context, bit reduced toward absurdity.
That it’s not to say such reduction is absurd, but that it approach, again , nominally toward absolute(zero)
Ecmandu, such conflation need an act of will, as to be able to exert a will, at the risk of being misunderstood.
The will is not necessarily in the innate sense of will to power, but in as described by You, in the sense of the Buddha , of letting go. That does not need to have a destructive mode, only quiet resignation toward a de-differentiated state of mind.
Umm… yeah, for the last three posts, you haven’t been talking to my content, but someone else entirely, not sure who though. I will comment on a phrase you used… de-differentiated state of mind. There is no such thing. I also argued that platonic forms refute the doctrine of dependent arising, and have no interest in a resignation of morality.
Why do they have to be human minds? Perhaps some extraterrestrial minds or even cyborg or other minds create forms
forms:
Maybe forms are like the world, its unsure who or what created them, for surely the minds of men did not create the world , even as now interpreted as being composed of pure energy. Are things energy? If not, then how can energy be said to exist, in the a scholastic sense , when matter as energy was not yet conceived?
What can be said of energy minimally is , that it is uncertain to qualify as any thing. That it is some thing. when ’ thing ’ is redefined as a 'quantum particle" , that it is unseen, then it follows that its a probable entity.
Proves that morality is objective - even if every being agreed that morality was fake, they’d all be incorrect (that’s what makes it objective. The reason being; they thought it good to offer the statement.
Platonic forms work the same way, uncaused, eternal. Perception requires platonic forms, platonic forms do not require perception. Platonic forms are not subjected to being affected by perception beings.
Or they simply like saying what they think is true and/or find it unpleasant when something they consider false is said and not countered with what they consider the truth. IOW they can see it in terms of desire, preferences, personal ones that is and not that it is good.
That’s your morality. But that doesn’t mean that someone who follows their desires, for example in saying what they think is true, also thinks that it is objectively moral to say it.
People don’t offer statements unless they think it is good to do so. Think of all the things you can say at any moment that you censor. You censor it because you think it bad… even people who misbehave do it for the attention, they still think it’s good.
My moral code as the bar of morality is inarguable, unless you just want attention, which I already commented on. Males are programmed with algorithms to argue blatant truths that apply to everyone for female sexuality.
You’ve said this a few times, but I see no evidence for it. Yes, most people believe in objective morality and when they say what they think is true, they are likely trying to be good (or think that is what they are doing, their actual motives may be something else). But it is not necessarily the case for everyone. There are people who do not believe there are objective morals, and when they point this out they need not believe they are making things objectively better, but rather enjoy saying the truth, prefer not to let falsehoods stand. IOW it is like much of the behavior of most people: habit, preference, desire, with no layer of ‘making the world objectively better’ on top.
I censor because of practical concerns. Sometimes out of empathy. But not because I believe it is good to censor. Or that it is objectively good not to cause pain. I am a social mammal. Social mammals manage just fine without a concept of objective moral good. They simply do what they want, avoid what they do not want.
Instead of calling it fake, you call it false (the bad), and truth (the good), you’re trying so hard not to admit the axiom I submitted so that you can defend these hypothetical people who are amoral, and who are, because truth is GOOD to them!