Outside of "thought"

We believe “it is”, we believe it exists. Common sense acts as though, if we were there, we would hear it, is the same as: it is making the sound when we aren’t there.

I hear a sound, knowledge of that sound. If the sound is called into doubt in some way, thought. The sound is thought.

Common sense finds touch problematic, touch seems at the basis of all the senses. Schopenhauer says: all the sense refer to touch. Locke, at first, thinks touch as a primary quality, corpuscularity, but later, he sees this as an error. When primary and secondary quality are challenged as essentially distinguishable, we have thought. Heidegger says here: the soul is not a gremlin, rushing about the body, rather, the we are bodily. Nietzsche: The body is alive. Aristotle, psuke and life are the same, and life is the “form” (invisible drive or instinct) of the body. Socrates: One can not see life in a mirror.

One can replace “kill” with “make harmless”, at least so long as one is not faced with a strong military or lethal prowess. Either way, one would say, this is the rational course for our laws to take. Ergo, one appeals to God or rationality. What you seem to exclude is direct rationality, ergo, revelation. The reason of one individual having mastered the art of reason, has for intermediary, the built up reason of the tradition “summa ratio”, between it and rationality proper (ergo, the mind of God). So, if you say, let us stick with one human being’s reason, or the rational tradition, you thereby assume tacitly there is a region beyond this, but you say, it is better not to risk unsound stumbling in the dark of what is not yet learned. Rationality, or God, is still presupposed as the unreachable standard.

From where is this law, or “should”, of yours layed down? Common sense of an Englishman in the second decade of a century measured from the birth of a God-man, that is, from a society that measures itself in mystical terms and places itself in being in these terms? Or, form a remote star untouched by human hands where the moral and intellectual development of the young is seen to in a wholly different way?

Because they like the sound of the word? And were peer pressured to believe it was the smart thing to join the faction, though they don’t know what it means, or what they are claiming.

Is wanting a perfect world, and what is really there, the same thing? So, the issue is, what do people think is possible? That gives us the meaning of God, or the rational principle of Justice as the conscience of each one. The attack on the tradition is based on the change in circumstance of human beings which requires a rethinking of justice according to the possibilities. God or rationality remains the standard of the determination. Cardinal Newman wrote, long ago, correspondingly, of the development of doctrine. We have, by the Catholic teaching, only the reflection on the waves, the echo of the mind of God or rationality proper. I’m not a confessor to the Catholic system, rather, I show: this rational or “atheistic” morality is a Catholicism.

Those are technical terms. They can’t be usefully, unless one’s purpose is to cause confusion and to do picayune low-brow polemics, understood in just any way, but only as they were meant by the Medieval science of theology. And even by specific theologians.

From where is such a law put down? The confession of your heart? Is it yet a doctrine, or, has it passed the test of many intelligent auditors and so become rational and godly Dogma?

Isn’t faith the consent? The point being, a horse might not want to drink the best and most healthy water? You make a Dogma, tell us the way to live, but maybe we won’t consent. We must see, this “atheism” faces all the same difficulties, and most of all the lack of awareness of its own dogmatism as what is detestable to the non-confessor of the fiery faith. One is like an ancient seed, buried by a squirrel, that after two thousand years is planted and blooms greener than any tree.

Isn’t it how thoughtless people always behave? What the man in a foreign country does, he thinks irrational. What the man in the other political party does, he thinks idiotic. What his forbears did in another circumstance, insane. His faith is vast, it is ardent.

Ergo, the faithful now call themselves godless. This is essentially a verbal change, but it has accidental content in the circumstantial evolution of human life through the industrial revolutions.

That reply was nonsense.

Why don’t you just state your trick outright instead of hiding it in encryption in a series of 5 posts?

I’m not going to run around in circles with you, this is your thesis:

If someone absolutely beyond all doubt disproves god, all they have done is prove god.

Are the Catholics really that desperate now?

I’ll have it out with you on your thesis if you continue posting about it.

Otherwise, bugger off.

:-$

There are many perspectives to reality.
There is the vulgar common sense, the conventional sense, the social, the theoretical, the practical, the Scientific, the philosophical, etc., and ultimately the Question of Being [Heidegger].

The Wittgenstein’s quote is related to the ultimate question in philosophy, i.e. the Question of Being and thus not relevant for the common vulgar or conventional sense. In the common sense perspective humans need to think and do whatever it takes to survive regardless of the knowledge of their thoughts and thinking.

But God’s thinking, thoughts and existence is supposedly independent of human thoughts.

As explained above, Wittgenstein’s position is not Solipsism.
Wittgenstein’s quote above is related to metaphysics and ontology, i.e. one should never reify something out of nothing i.e. literally shut up the mind, with the idea of an independent ultimate entity.
Note Wittgenstein’s counter to Moore’s ‘there is an independent hand’ in ‘On Certainty’, thus no independent reality to be spoken thereof.

As I had explained elsewhere, the impulse to reify something out of nothing is due to one’s desperate existential psychology.

I thought you prefer and agreed with no verbal attacks?
Btw, I have reservations re your thinking but will shut up on it.

My foundation of morality is that of the Kantian Framework and System.
One of the absolute maxim of the Kantian morality is ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ period, no ifs and no buts.

Thus there will be no killing [in general] of the extremist religious killers but rather there are loads of preventive methods we can carry out to deal with the evil ideology and rewire the brains of the extremists toward good and striving to be near the ideal in the future.

Note I raised this thread;
Do NOT Bash Muslims
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=191104&p=2627469&hilit=do+not+bash+muslims#p2627469

My point;
The foundation of reality-as-it-is is imperatively complimented with thoughts.

Yup

No, to have sounds requires ears and a brain.

Yup. No concepts could possibly describe god (especially since you and god are one and the only thing you could never describe is yourself).

Yup!

Yup :frowning:

If you do that, then you’re left explaining how something came from nothing: how psychology came from a bunch of dead junk.

It’s easier (via occams razor) to assume everything is conscious to varying degrees.

Consciousness isn’t a complicated form of mineral, but mineral is a simple form of consciousness.

Pantheism is the easiest way out.

I tend to agree with this. All that’s needed is to connect the dots.

Wut?

Basically this thread is about gnosticism vs agnosticism.

Gnostic = conceptual, cataphatic knowledge = what god is = a painter applying paint to produce an image
Agnostic = nonconceptual, apophatic knowledge (ie faith) = what god isn’t = sculptor removing stone to reveal an image

There is a big post written about it here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193866&p=2697490&hilit=cataphatic#p2697490

“Outside of thought” = nonconceptual, apophatic knowledge. Like the knowledge you acquired to beat your heart, which is beyond concept.

Bruce Lee (who desired to be known as a philosopher) instructed students to “learn to forget”, meaning we practice so much that the knowledge becomes part of us and we no longer think about how to make the movement, so the conceptualization is lost.

Nonconceptual knowledge is a higher form of knowledge, and harder to convey.

“Outside of thought” is not outside of the universe, but simply thought that can’t be conceptualized and conveyed.

How something came from nothing?

In the above statement your are assuming ‘something’ pre-existed without any proof that it exists.
If something-A came from something-B, then from what did something-B came from?
If you can present a source for something-B, i.e. something-C, then from what did something-C came from? and on it goes …
In that case you are caught with the problem of infinite regression - which is a useless answer.

Theists forced themselves psychologically to conclude a First Cause or Unmoved Mover, which is still subject to infinite regression, i.e. turtle-all-the-way??

This is where Wittgenstein’s point is very valid, i.e.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Wittgenstein (Tractatus 7)

The above is applicable to situation like the above not to common sense.

Pantheism is not the easiest way out because it is still subjected to infinite regression and existential psychological impulses in a way?

The more practical is that of Buddhism, i.e. focus on the ‘NOW’ and act positively towards the well being of oneself and others.
Buddhist philosophy do take into account the past and the future as secondary but the primary focus is on the ‘NOW.’

Whether that ultimate ‘something’ exists in the past, present or future is actually insignificant except for the psychological comfort to those who reify that something out of nothingness. Thus dealing with that psychological issue is more important than jumping to the conclusion ‘something can come from nothing’ arising from a mistaken illusory thinking.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing against. The proposition is how consciousness came from unconsciousness (ie something from nothing).

It’s the only way to explain the origin of life without requiring magic.

Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.

What I am arguing against is; one cannot insist things must come from something ultimate.

Note I am not claiming consciousness came from unconsciousness.
What I am insisting is we must stick to the empirical facts and possibilities and nothing else.

Human consciousness is an empirical fact which can be proven empirically.
Human consciousness emerges from a living human brain and its properties.
We can only insist on the above empirical facts and nothing else.

To insist Human consciousness emerges from more than a living human brain, its properties within an empirical environment, example a universal consciousness independent of the human brain, is a falsehood.

Nope!
The most optimal option to explain the origin of life is to restrict to what is empirical and the empirical possible.
Pantheism speculates on the empirical impossible, i.e. an ultimate being.

Hinduism generally refers to whatever spiritual philosophies and religions that are East of the Hindu river within India. In that sense, yes Buddhism is a part of Hinduism in the most general sense.

But to be more precise,
The majority of Hinduism comprised of spiritual philosophies that entail a belief in Brahman and atman.
Buddhism is anti-atman, i.e. anatman and anti-Brahman.
In this specific sense in terms of core principles, Buddhism is significantly different from the majority of Hindu philosophies.

Buddhism’s philosophy of anti-Brahman and anatman do not entertain any proposition, there must be ultimately something for something to exists.

Not sure why people thought this thread was about “God”, I take that word as a synonym for Rationality, as it is in the medieval Catholic tradition (and also the Jewish and Islamic). Most of the answers are a sign of the mental illness of the respondents, which I in some way encouraged, wishing to be conciliatory. The issue, as always, is what subject matter is in play. Namely, Thinking.

In Heidegger everything is linked to common sense. His thinking is historical. He is constantly confronting the opinions he grew into, which are a ray of light hitting this place and this time. Wittgenstein didn’t have Heidegger’s conception of Being. Being is, as Aristotle said long ago, “said in many ways”. We all must learn to illuminate the specific sense of the term used so as to know what we are talking about with as much exactness as is possible. Which never means that the determination of the concept is fixed, or that we play no part in it.

Wittgenstein approached the issue, in his youth, though latter his position took many serious turns, as someone trying to make a one to one connection between words and things. This word of yours is from his earliest thinking and still linked to Russell.

He gives up that position, which he got from Russell. Since he thinks it through and sees it doesn’t work. Not sure what “existential psychology” means. Existentialism is identical to the view of every one of us in the west, and planetary so far as western thinking has taken over the elites, and the internet has reached the rest. It simply means taking the whole of life into account, rather than science as intellectual verity. We speak from within life, even in our higher investigations. Each one freely, freely in the sense of: according to the “right” to be our own interpreter of everything.

No attack was intended. It is a straightforward, non-ironic, question. We have to be able to carry out an investigation coolly. Philosophy is cold, like Vodka, it can outlast other liquids in the freezer.

BTW. You thought wrong. One must say someone is an idiot, if they are according to a non-arbitrary standard. For instance, blabbering about things they know nothing about. We are not sophists who live in intellectual abstractions and “logical” rules disconnected to life and common sense.

Who cares. The issue is to investigate without condemning or praising on the bases of prejudices and commitments.

Kant never says any such thing. You’re thinking of some interpretation of the Laws of Moses. In the Septuagint that is not said either, what is said is thou shalt not murder. A great distinction.

The issue is: How to live? Not what fanciful rules one can praise oneself for dreaming about. Ergo, you must confront what was already said. The world, real laws, human beings. Not a sanctimonious fabulation which always allows you to praise yourself inexhaustibly and impotently.

Your position is basically: I am good. Everyone else is vicious. It’s nothing but childish hiding in your mind. We all have to consider realities.

So you’re saying atoms arranged into a human brain = consciousness. So, junk + magic = consciousness.

Yep!

Are we schoolyard kids now?

That is not an explanation, but an assertion.

The atman in Hinduism is just a manifestation of the Brahman which is precisely the same with Buddhism’s anatman being a manifestation of the universe as an organism. Neither religion asserts that you exist as a you. Buddhism says you’re part of the larger organism and hinduism says you’re a character in a play. Either way, you don’t exist except as part of something bigger.

If you want to exist as a you, you’ll need an Abrahamic religion where a god creates you as a spirit.

The theories of the universe can be categorized into 4:

  1. The ceramic model: created by god.

  2. The fully-automatic model: the creation minus the god: atheism.

  3. The organic model: the universe is an organism: Buddhism.

  4. The dramatic model: the universe is a play: Hinduism.

  5. God always existed.

  6. The quantum foam always existed.

  7. The organism always existed.

  8. The Brahman always existed.

#2 asserts consciousness came from nothing because complexly arranged junk cannot explain the emergence of consciousness from unconsciousness. #1,3,4 assert consciousness always existed.

Since 1 and 2 are silly and since 3 is a subset of 4, then 4 is the best explanation so far.

I’m open to a #5 if you can think of one.

I addressed the essence of this thread here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194724#p2719003

Outside of thought = agnosticism.

Sound is a perception, it’s something your ears hear, like sights or images are something your eyes see, or smells are something your nose smells, and so on.
Strictly speaking, you can’t have a perception without a perceiver, an organism, but you can have chemicals in and vibrations of air, light and water, which would produce perceptions in whatever organisms happened to be around, if any.

That sounds like Cathy Newman’s ‘so you’re saying’ … trap.
You are putting words into the mouth of the other.

I have stated very clearly above.
We must start from what we know, i.e. we, human beings has evolved with ‘consciousness’ which can be verified empirically.
Thus we start with what is knowable empirically, i.e. that human has consciousness.
Then we search backward to determine what is this consciousness and how it emerges in relation to the human brain and its interactions with its environment.

The point here is we can only go back as far as what is empirically justificable plus rationally explainable plus philosophically rational.

You cannot claim and insist beyond the above.

Point is you have to prove pantheism is a tenable theory.

As above, you are making the positive claim.
Thus you have to prove pantheism is a tenable theory, not me.

Where did you get the idea 'anatman is a manifestation of the universe as an organism?

There are idea of ‘you’ in certain philosophy of Hinduism.

Certain of your models are wrong.

[A]theism = totally indifferent to a deity or God.
Non-theists believe in creations but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather it is based on Science, and other rational justifications.

Buddhism do not assert the Universe an organism as a core principle.
The core principles of Buddhism are;

  1. Impermanence
  2. Anatta or anatman
  3. Dependent origination
  4. The four noble truths
  5. The noble eightfold paths
  6. The five precepts

The core principles of Hinduism are;

Truth is eternal. Hindus pursue knowledge and understanding of the Truth: the very essence of the universe and the only Reality. …
[list]Brahman is Truth and Reality. …
The Vedas are the ultimate authority. …
Everyone should strive to achieve dharma. …
Individual souls [atman] are immortal. …
The goal of the individual soul is moksha.
dummies.com/religion/hindui … of-hindus/[/list:u]

I’m trying to summarize what you’re saying because whatever it is that you are saying is buried in a word salad.

Either consciousness emerged from unconsciousness or it did not. If it did, then it’s something from nothing. If it did not, then consciousness didn’t emerge at all, but was always.

Humans have consciousness, but what about monkeys? Dogs? Cats? Birds? Fish? Plants? Bacteria? Virus? Molecules? Atoms? Where is the line?

If you say there is a line, then you are saying consciousness came from unconsciousness.

I don’t have to prove it, but I have demonstrated it. You’re free to believe in magic if you want.

That’s another assertion. That’s not proof, demonstration, nor rationale.

Alan Watts

Just like in Christianity, I’m sure there are different ways to practice Hinduism.

Well, I guess Alan Watts was an idiot who wrote a bunch of books and hours of audio recordings only to display his total ignorance on religion. At least Dummies.com cleared it up.

This is an important issue. When are we getting word salad and when do we have an innovative thinker putting new or subtle concepts in the best language they can find? And, of course, this isn’t binary, there can be mixtures of word salad and uniquely presented insight. I think some people present things in what seems kinda cool - a very niche form of cool - to them, because it is dynamic, abstract, not quite clear, etc. And this of course creates a kevlar around them when people misunderstand their word salad posing as deep. I don’t think it is always easy to know what one is dealing with. In some weak philosophy forum like this, the heuristic that it is unbelievably likely to be word salad is probably a good one. But then one might miss something interesting. Good that you keep trying to make it through the haze.