• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Any Atheists here?

How true is this meme?? And I it think refers to mostly the extreme atheists (like Christopher Hitchens)

tenets-of-atheism1.jpg
 
Psyduck said:
This LOGOS is "more absolute than God" in the sense that it makes possible the relation between a finite creature and its Desire for infinity in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that we're on the same page too. However, wouldn't a believer in god expect a being adequately 'omnipresent' (not sure how to say this..."encompassing"? "extensive in autonomy"?) to the extent that it encompasses even the above description of how the logos functions?
...
Question: in your opinion, is your conception of the logos found in the Greek classical philosophers' idea of the concept?

L2R said:
^sorry sunshine, but I'm afraid you have a bad case of theism.
Click to expand...

But is my description truly similar to how many believers (particularly churchgoers) conceptualize their god? I haven't ever heard believers describing their deity in this way. . .

ebola
 
Question: in your opinion, is your conception of the logos found in the Greek classical philosophers' idea of the concept?
Click to expand...
I will try to make some more sense of it (even though, ultimately, I am convinced one cannot make sense of it...)

1) First of all, the LOGOS does not coincide with the "human logos" or "reason, logic" (but is more of a cosmic principle). Nonetheless the human logos "is attuned" to the cosmic logos. In this sense the human being has a special place in the cosmos.

2) It is difficult to talk about something beyond-being (i.e. antecendent to the being vs. non-being dualism, as you also pointed out). Nonetheless, I think that this "beyond-being" has been discussed in western philosophy. Most noteworthy is maybe in Neoplatonism which can be informally described as a view, deriving from Plato's theory of the good as the highest form beyond being (epikeina tes ousias, Republic). I think that this "beyond-being" is indeed what I am trying to point at.

3) In recent continental philosophy E. Levinas has reintroduced this notion. Even though much of his ethical thought is unrelated to my view, I think the title of his book "Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence" is a good way of formulating what I am thinking about.

4) My understanding of this LOGOS comes through my reading of Heideggers engagement with the Greeks. My understanding is therefore also much indebted to Heraclitus his Logos (as well Anaximander his apeiron). For him this LOGOS is not a "thing" (entity, object, thingy, a something, some this-or-that) but rather a principle. The Greeks used the name "arche" for principle. I understand this "principle" however in more modern terms, in particular I connect it with Kant's notion of the "transcendental" (=condition of possibility). I think you use it in the same way.

5) However, my view differs from Kant, in the sense that it is impossible to think this apriori [condition of possibility]. It's not an object for thought. In this sense there is a flavor of Derrida in my view. The ground for the difference (différance) between opposites is ultimately an abyss, something inaccessible for thought... maybe some form of mysticism must come into play here...

Hope this makes some sense. I don't have a clear conception of it, but it is an always recurring idea.
 
psyduck said:
1) First of all, the LOGOS does not coincide with the "human logos" or "reason, logic" (but is more of a cosmic principle). Nonetheless the human logos "is attuned" to the cosmic logos. In this sense the human being has a special place in the cosmos.
Click to expand...

Right, and doesn't this follow from the Logos functioning as a body of preconditions of the 'human logos' (or rather a 'context' setting the stage for the human logos to emerge therefrom)?

For him this LOGOS is not a "thing" (entity, object, thingy, a something, some this-or-that) but rather a principle.

I connect it with Kant's notion of the "transcendental" (=condition of possibility).
Click to expand...

Right, and I find this intrinsically difficult to conceptualize, let alone articulate. Since the Logos lies beyond/prior-to distinction between 'things' (entities), 'actions' (transformations), and 'conditions' (contexts), we are only left with recourse to point vaguely at it. Conceptualization of the Logos as a principle highlights its generative nature.

The ground for the difference (différance) between opposites is ultimately an abyss, something inaccessible for thought... maybe some form of mysticism must come into play here...
Click to expand...

Insightful! This highlights the nothingness (more properly, the no-thingness) of the Logos. In terms of spirituality, this is where mystical religion (put most literally in Zen and Taoist practice) and atheism coincide.

ebola
 
ebola? said:
But is my description truly similar to how many believers (particularly churchgoers) conceptualize their god? I haven't ever heard believers describing their deity in this way. . .

ebola
Click to expand...
In most cases, no. But this is only because most church goers don't think too deeply what they mean when they say "God". In essence, what you have described is exactly where that word goes.
 
L2R said:
In most cases, no. But this is only because most church goers don't think too deeply what they mean when they say "God". In essence, what you have described is exactly where that word goes.
Click to expand...
but has ebola not clearly pointed out that what he is trying to point at is NOT-a-THING?

This view differs drastically from the theist who essentially claims that there is a "transcendent entity" (which IS-a-THING) with some well-defined attributes (i.e. goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) and which created the universe ex nihilo.
 
No, he described a thing which is and is not. Sure it ain't what most theists think, but a layperson's simplification changes nothing, no matter how common it is.
 
L2R said:
No, he described a thing which is and is not. Sure it ain't what most theists think, but a layperson's simplification changes nothing, no matter how common it is.
Click to expand...

Really?

ebola said:
There is a set of conditions of possibility for existence, logically and causally PRIOR to the division between existence and non-existence itself
Click to expand...
 
If it leads to both, it is both. So, yes really.
 
L2R said:
If it leads to both, it is both. So, yes really.
Click to expand...
Yes & No.

As I pointed out elsewhere. Consider the metaphor of a piece of paper

There is "front-side" and "back-side." There is also a "middle-side" (so to speak...) being the condition of possibility of their separation and unification. This "middle-side" is logically & causally PRIOR to the "front-side" and "back-side."
Click to expand...

So how many "sides" are there for you? One? Two? Three?

=> If "ONE" then the front & back are the same (PURE identity)
=> if "TWO" then the front and back are separated (PURE difference)
=> if "THREE" then there is something [some-not-a-thing] prior to the front and back that can separate & connect the two sides (MEDIATED IDENTITY & DIFFERENCE)

----

To change this metaphor mutatis mutandi for the God issue...
assume "one side" (transcendence, God) and the "other side" (immanence, created world)

=> Then there must be something PRIOR to transcendence & immanence that mediates (and makes possible) their unification/separation. This is what I am pointing at ... I assume ebola holds a similar view...

To rephrase the above scheme

=> If "ONE" then the front & back are the same (PURE identity) => PANTHEISM
=> if "TWO" then the front and back are separated (PURE difference) => DEISM/THEISM OR ATHEISM (depending which side you are looking at)
=> if "THREE" then there is something [some-not-a-thing] prior to the front and back that can separate & connect the two sides (MEDIATED IDENTITY & DIFFERENCE) => maybe a form of PANENTHEISM, even though this might not be appropriate either... not sure how to conceptualize it...
 
Last edited:
Sides are only a matter of perspective. It is still just the one thing. I won't say a piece of paper had one side, but it is one object.

I prefer the half glass metaphor to illustrate this. Both void and substance depending on where one prefers to look. This is nothing about optimism, both perspectives can be positive or negative. Regardless of side, they appraise the same object/event.
 
1° And how is perspective itself made possible then?

2° In the metaphor of the glass. To say that it is "half full" or "half empty" presupposes you can already preconceive the two extremes (opposites) "full" and "empty." Saying that it is half-empty or half-full is a particular way of "mediating" these opposites in your mind.
 
The illusion of separation is just that, an illusion. It is the thing which separates the prior condition to which you and Ebola refer from the (seeming) polar opposites.
 
Ok, I understand and respect your position. Nonetheless, we don't have to agree :)

For me it's not an illusion but a real cosmic principle interpenetrating the whole universe.
 
The sentiment is felt mutually. I've really liked your ideas in here.
 
I'll note for clarification that I prefer conceptualization of religiosity along two dimensions:

content: from atheism to theism
certainty of belief: from abjectly agnostic to fervently faithful.

ebola
 
Last edited:
^ How are we on page thirteen of this thread and even the mods are still misrepresenting the meaning of agnosticism and atheism? I get that you are way, WAY smarter than me but come on now. Saying you're agnostic has no bearing on how certain you are in what you believe, as I said in my last post at the top of this page, agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. You either think it is possible for humanity to comprehend the ultimate truths of the universe (when it comes to the existence of dieties), or you don't think that is possible. Based on your two dimensions a person might line up as a "fervently faithful atheist" when in fact there is no such thing. Atheists do not take anything on faith. Faith requires you to suspend rational thought and believe whatever it is you've decided to believe forever, and even if it doesnt make perfect sense, do not question it. It is true because we believe it is true, so lets leave it at that. There is no atheist who thinks that way or would ever entertain the idea that atheism has some set of commandments one must faithfully and fervently (blindly) follow.
 
You either think it is possible for humanity to comprehend the ultimate truths of the universe (when it comes to the existence of dieties), or you don't think that is possible.
Click to expand...

Okay. But don't these positions have direct implications for how certain one would be about their 'best guess' about the fundamental properties of being, those ultimate truths, etc.? I assume that the latter position here is identified with agnosticism, and this position implies that one would be quite uncertain about his or her best guesses about those truths. But the again, this is just a question of definitions, and I find the two dimensional model more useful.

Atheists do not take anything on faith.
Click to expand...

I don't think that things are so cut and dried. The construction of any system of knowledge requires some degree of assumption to get off the ground in the first place. This is at the very least true in the case of most mathematics (derivations begin from axioms). Scientists must also choose between multiple hypotheses each commensurable with empirical data, and in turn multiple theoretical structures in which these hypotheses are situated, and ultimately multiple interpretations of what these theories describe. Is such assumption different in kind from faith? I don't know, as I've never been faithful. . .

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top