Thought you might. Great.
The teacher must leave in order for the student to learn.
See Kierkegaard’s “Gospel of Suffering”
Thats a valuable insight.
Yes, the student must first be free to object to all he has heard, and by his own resources, address all that he objects to and therefrom learn what these obtrusive notions really mean. A notion is only proto-knowledge, it must first be… valued by the student in his own terms, integrated into some living reality, take on value.
“Value” is far juicier than there analytics would have it.
Heidegger is the philosophy of grass.
Which is a really good start for a farm. Which is a really good start for an Idea.
An Idea is just a really big farm.
No, I meant, which is a good basis for a civilization. A civilization occurs between farmlands.
One might say Indians (Americans) had culture, but didn’t bring about a civilization. WL said to understand culture and civilization as opposites.
In fact they did farm the continent but by more natural means - they created the prairies by setting fire each spring and fall to the woods. In the early colonial time one could say; up the Hudson between the burning banks on both sides.
Human life was once real, when there were still Encounters…
Now only philosophy, or aliens can save us.
Well, perhaps your own understanding of God does not include the part where He created nature. In other words, when He created Earth and all the rest.
In law, they speak of “acts of God”:
“In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible.”
I must be misunderstanding your point here.
Even if the human species does manage to meld with sky and earth and forge an everlasting peace here on planet Earth, the earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis and tornados and floods etc., will still be around. Not to mention extinction events hurtling down from the heavens above when the next Big One strikes.
IMHO, you and I are “acts of God”. What do we do about natural and human disasters?
Natural disasters, in or time, may be Nature crying," Rape!"
We have run out of avatars? Are none being planted in this infertile soil?
I think the soil has to be ploughed, first.
Minerals, struck in old stale formations, tossed around.
But I don’t want this to be some yuge apocalyptic war.
Nietzche tossed it around between Husserl and Kierkegaard, inadvertently beyond uniform space time, and it already caused cataclysm.
That is what all the excitement of about a reexamination of Nietzche’s relevance in phenomenological crossed reference to Husserls.
Some would indicate a sabbatical without portfolio,( but that would entail some presumptions of weakness by others)- just to try to brush up on that.
Again, from my frame of mind, the irony here is simply staggering!
God created these natural disasters. Why? Because they are built right into the creation of planet Earth itself. “Natural disasters” that, over the centuries, have maimed, mutilated and brutally massacred countless thousands – millions – of men, women and children. And, in fact, when these “acts of God” occur many mere mortals have done everything that they possibly could do to relieve the pain and suffering. Pain and suffering that their “loving just and merciful” Creator brought into existence in the first place.
Explanation?
Well, what else is there [still] but to put their faith in God’s “mysterious ways”; and to accept that their only recourse is [still] God if they want immortality and salvation.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? “In or time”?
Edit:
Okay, I think you meant, “in our time”. But what difference does it make what time [historically] they occur? Who [ultimately] is doing the raping if not God?
It seems to make sense only to the extent that one is arguing that nature and God are not one and the same.
A little help from others here, please.
Nature is created by a god , and god was not created. Nature is phenominal
God is nominal . By that it is meant that god is who he is. He is himself, a spiritual entity, unbounded even by or of himself.
Granted, in the beginning was the word, and in the vernacular of the apprebendable this is axiomatic.
There is no other, logically or descriptively.
All I can seem to get from you, Iambiguos, is that God, in whom you do not believe, has a history of self-abuse and is culpable in our present experiences of entropy. Have you nothing to offer but denial? IMHO, your fight against God is actually a fight against something within yourself. God is not on trial here, as the fervor of your denial suggests.
God is noumenal? (SP Kant’s distinction–phenomena and noumena )
Lerrellus :God is a synthetic necessity.
He overcomes.all distinctions .( in him, with him , through him) this is what i remember from liturgy before stopped going to church.
The points I raise about God above: You will either address them to the best of your ability or you will continue to make me the issue.
What I believe is this: that what I believe about God is no less an existential contraption. Of course a God, the God, your God might exist. And, if He does, am I not permitted to ponder why He would allow for such destructive and devastating things as category 5 hurricanes? And [sooner or later] the next extinction event?
How do you rationalize it? By blaming nature? But what does that even mean given the existence of God?
Have you nothing to offer but affirmations based largely, in my view, on the comfort and consolation they provide you in a world bursting at the seams with so much terrible human suffering?
Who the hell wouldn’t want to believe there is in fact a loving, just and merciful God able to provide you with immortality and salvation up there…if you are willing to toe His line down here.
Sure, no doubt about it, a part of my reaction here is embedded in my own psychological turmoil and travail. The perturbations built right into the human condition in facing both the horrors of human existence on this side of the grave and the prospect of oblivion on the other side.
But that is a manifestation of dasein, in my view. And “I” only have so much understanding and control over that.
Agree.
I ask for koans. Have you no koans in your pocket?
If you wish to debate about what God is like or means, Bob has a good thread for that.
Have you a cure for suffering that can top Buddhism?
If we are to hope to exist
Then the line between the inside
and the outside
Has to be remarked
As if time offers a cure to turn ghostly shadow with the invisible ink that separates them,
And reverse course, of course,
Inside becomes out
And out reverts back
Into It’s Self
and our sense of childhood wonder
rise again
but strangely
So strangely
That god has.to suffer
Along
As well with what has been
Created, the price
For all the eons of effects and cameras, mantras
Just to Be, for a second’s
Pleasure, cries the boy
Unknowing the pathos
Of wasted time
In his soul.
That is his koan!
I was responding specifically to the OP: “When sky father and earth mother are wed, there will be peace on Earth.”
Now, that may or may not pertain to God and religion. And koans are either more or less about the manner in which a point is constructed or a reaction to the point itself.
After all, “a koan is a riddle or puzzle that Zen Buddhists use during meditation to help them unravel greater truths about the world and about themselves.”
What greater truths? With or without God?
And, by all means, if you feel Buddhism is the most effective cure for human misery – if that works for you – go with it.
Others, however, argue that like so many other religious/spiritual narratives, Buddhism detracts from the effort of those who insist that, on the contrary, if you want to reduce human misery you must go to the source: the political struggle of those who seek to counter the weight of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy.
That, in its own way, Buddhism is just one more rendition of an “opiate for the masses”.
Still, I’ll take your reaction to the points I raised here as more or less what I expected. Just as [no doubt] you’ll take mine.
The OP could have meant science and religion, neither of which can describe God alone. If you are really interested in the problem with religion, read Bishop Spong’s “Why Christianity Must Change Or Die”. It should be refreshing beside your atavistic nihilism.
I am not a Buddhist.
To talk about God, whom you do not claim to know, with me, whom you do not care to know, is doubly negative. Can you offer positive thoughts?
atavistic:
a: recurrence in an organism of a trait or character typical of an ancestral form and usually due to genetic recombination
b: recurrence of or reversion to a past style, manner, outlook, approach, or activity
That being the case then, on the contrary, my own nihilism is quite the opposite of that. It is derived from how I have come to think about the world around me given that no one has yet to convince me [of late] that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist.
Human interaction in a No God world is, in my view, reasonably consistent with the components I have chosen – given some measure of human autonomy – when confronting things like peace on earth: identity, value judgments, political power. Then my argument above kicks in. Which you basically ignore.
Then why this: “Have you a cure for suffering that can top Buddhism?”
To which I responded. To which you then chose not to respond.
To talk about God – you, me and others here – is, in my view, to invoke the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. And that is deemed to be negative by the objectivists [God or No God] who do not wish to explore the extent to which what they do talk about is more an existential contraption than the embodiment of the real me – possessing a soul – in sync with the right way to talk about God.
In other words, when some speak of offering positive thoughts here, what they are really after are thoughts that reinforce and then sustain the comfort and consolation that their own view of God [in relationship to peace on earth] provide them. And, among friends or in church or around the dinner table, that is to be expected. But this is a philosophy venue.
Here, we’re expected to go a little deeper.