Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are an adherent of Judaism no? If so, do you not agree with the Genesis account that God created the universe?
Much thanks is in order Arthra, to you. For you have succinctly and clearly presented us with a view of the Baha'i worldview. It seems to me to be monistic and centers on the notion that reality is one and that all life is oriented towards a unity with the one. It seems to me then, like other views here, to be pantheistic. Is that accurate?
If you'll notice, not once did I speak for any other perspective than my own. I'm of the firm conviction that there are as many perspectives of God and Reality as there are Human Beings. So to answer your question directly, it's not possible for another individual to observe reality from another perspective. I liken it to a leaves on a tree. They are all part of the same tree, yet not a single one is like another. At most, another person can "catch" an image of what anther is saying. At the same time, closest I've seen where one person comes closes to catching the perspective of another are from the Mystics. But they talk about it differently and use words like "catching the transmission". But Mystics operate in a space of consciousness where ones' perspective of reality is in a different realm than most of us operate in.Very profound indeed dlamberth! I have a follow-up question for you in the hopes that you may be able to clarify something for me. You have said that your beliefs about various issues regarding origin, meaning, morality, and destiny stem from your perspective that All is God and God is all. My question is this, how is it possible to speak of something from a particular "perspective" if ultimately no individual observers exist to observe reality from their perspectives?
This ^^In other words, do you think that caring for humanity is a good that has genuine value in and of itself,
I'm not sure I understand your question: Buddhism, as I practice it, does not teach that "all is one and one is all".Thanks ananda for your thoughtful responses. They do tend to raise questions for me though. For example, you speak of what is the case for individuals. This is interesting. How can there be "individuals" if all is one and one is all?
One day, it may be conceivable. But until that day comes, it remains inconceivable in my mind and is best put aside in order to spend the short amount of time I have addressing what I can conceive: the problem of suffering/discontentment and its solution.In addition to my question about the ultimate fate of the universe and of humanity, you answered by saying that the answer is inconceivable. If it is true that it is inconceivable, then you would not know that it was inconceivable. This is thus a self-refuting view is it not?
What do you mean by "good for goodness sake," precisely? I ask because this language is very Platonic. Are you assigning the notion of goodness a transcendental reality, or do you mean it in purely utilitarian or pragmatic terms? In other words, do you think that caring for humanity is a good that has genuine value in and of itself, or is it simply a matter of personal preference and societal utility?
Always the good questions. I'm still exploring this. Is it a cop out to say both? For sure I feel it's utilitarian but there may also be a transcendent quality surrounding it. Sort of like a Platonic Ideal Form. Though I'm not sure that's enough to make me a Platonist alone!
For lack of a better term yes.Very interesting Jane_the_Bane! In all of this I have gathered that you hold to some form of pantheism, is that correct?
Tikkun Olam (fix the world) is a profound concept,
the place where mysticism meets activism.
No, not a cop out at all. Morality is a complicated thing, and I think you can get pretty far by focusing on human flourishing and what does and doesn't contribute to it. But if you're going to jump from supporting ideas because they're useful to supporting them because they're good in and of themselves, there needs to be something transcendentally good about flourishing in general. If you get there, you're a Platonist, at least on this issue.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the universe is meaningless in and of itself, as in asserting that as a fact, just that if there is some sort of objective purpose, I don't know what that might be. And since we can't seem to figure it out, it seems plausible that if it exists, it's hidden from us for some reason. So if there is a "higher purpose", it doesn't seem to include humans knowing what that purpose is.
Morality is a tricky one. I can't appeal to some sort of objective morality except in the sense that we all agree that there is a difference between right and wrong. It's deep down in the core of all of us. It can be explained by evolutionary theory, but as far as I can understand, religion doesn't have a better answer. If something is right because God said so, then it's not right in and of itself, it's just what happens to be God's will. It looks like at least some animals also have a sense of morality or justice.
I am looking for some people who are not Christians to have a discussion with to better understand their worldview. The discussion will focus on answers to at least four topics which worldviews deal with: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. The discussion can be done here in this thread, in a private message, in person (If you live near Charlotte, NC), on Facebook, or through email. It can be made public or kept private. If you are or anyone you know is interested, please let me know. Thanks!
Why would you think that? Admittedly, I'm more of a post-humanist than a transhumanist, but the way I see these movements, they foster *more* awareness of identity instead of less - even while they acknowledge the artificiality of the concept.Meaning: No objective meaning, subjective meaning is ok. Yet it's probably heavily relied on evolutionary psychology. Transhumanism will probably leave the question of meaning irrelevant. We'll transcend the need for meaning, and probably the idea of "identity" as we know it.
Why would you think that? Admittedly, I'm more of a post-humanist than a transhumanist, but the way I see these movements, they foster *more* awareness of identity instead of less - even while they acknowledge the artificiality of the concept.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?