GENIUS FORUMS

Here's a quote from DQ's thread Greatest thing of all (which ironically sounds like the medieval way of demonstrating god) You've obviously chosen to value the true, but limited, perception that "nothing is fundamentally important" and place it above all else. That's your choice. But as I ...

Never heard that one before. It reminds me of Socrates though: accused of debasing the coinage. Who has pointy ears, please listen up! Before his breakdown his landlord said that Nietzsche required to have the pictures removed from his room to make it look more like a temple, and had strange habits...

I see, but something that exists eg. a chair, isn't the total of existence. We can say that a chair has four legs, I'm not sure that means we can say that existence has four legs in the sense we talk of the chair having it. Another example is that if someone injures their left arm in some way it can...

Maybe Newton's first law of movement gives a clear picture here, a body in movement will keep in movement unless acted upon by an external force. You could interpret this as there being internal and external forces, or as there being no need for any kind of internal forces since a body will tend to ...

The literature says that he had a brain tumour, he also burned money which is a whole other level of crazy. The man was also suspicious of the virtue of the philosopher's which is taken to be a good in itself, and the idea that creation and cure is destruction may be much more frightening than the w...

The difference you make between abstract and material can be seen epistemological just as how we experience and understand things, that math is a language makes sense here in how we experience language sensorial things. The all connected may be as well called the one amorphous blob. DQ is saying tha...

I am giving a materialistic reading of DQ and that is one of the things that follow from it. I think the matter of the discussion in case was whether the ultimate can be talked about, there are views contrary to the idea that the ultimate can be discussed, presented or thought, and David's position ...

I don't know if sooner or latter it was established that natural knowledge couldn't be in contradiction with the scriptures as one were the creation of god and the other the revealed word, and contrary to what appears this may give a positive view towards the investigation of the natural world as th...

To be or not to be, that is the question. That depends on what you bring to the question. The great philosopher is concerned with the infinite nature of reality, while the dealings of scientists and theologians are infinitesimal in comparison because they deal with finites. The problem with infinit...

It's a perspective from which any random person could say that something like theology is nothing. David may be saying that from a greater philosopher's perspective a philosophers perspective is nothing as from a super greater philosopher's perspective a great philosophers perspective is nothing. Or...

I mean here that David was using a scientific materialistic view of the world to deny theology and by consequence Aquinas thought, it is more timely than timeless by all means. Whether or not Aquinas tapped into timeless wisdom is a timeless truth? From what I gather what David is talking about, tha...

So the old paganism and today's alienation are the same thing it's just that the first were simpler than the latter. And a step further from today's alienation is to see oneself as alien (outside) the world, someone outside the world would have little to change in this world - but that sounds like c...

The debate came up three or four times this year on this forum, and I don't think David's thought changed since then. Directly to the point, I think the perspective of a great philosopher David was talking about would be a perspective from 'timeless thinking', Aquinas theology may be considered arca...

That's on contradiction, anything said can be unsaid, negated, contraried, and the unsaid can carry negation or denial, that even when used rethorically may have more feelings than reason or logic. David said that from the perspective of a great philosophers it is nothing. Would this perspective be ...

Here's a quote from David Quinn debate on 'ne plus ultra' (David was talking about blind faith and how irrelevant Aquinas thought may be today, I think compared to David's thought and 'timeless thinking') Aquinus used to do groundbreaking work in the field of theology. It used to impress his fellow ...

What, you are struggling to distinguish between what is and isn't real, what have you been smoking? There's no unreal reality by definition. A = A.

What's wrong with plain old regular reality? You are dividing reality in ultimate infinite reality and regular finite reality where there's no need for such division, something is either real or unreal.

Nietzsche was a polemicist so he appropriated things literarily which is a step down from an appropriation of thought and structure, it is something that may have lead to his rejection of Darwinism, for example. You were talking of ambiguity always being in language and of false realities, given the...

Defining anything to be "infinite" other than the Infinite itself is self defeating. Attributes, or observing the attributes of something, is an act of demarcation by consciousness, which is, in effect, a finitizing (if you will) of the Infinite. This is impossible, of course, so it is re...

I find it hard to find one original idea in Nietzsche it's more like he was the one spinning, inverting... Maybe this by Spinoza is closer to what you are saying: Metphysical Thoughts: Part 1, Chapter 1. Concerning Real Being, Fictitious Being, and Being of Reason.     Concerning the definition of k...

This is a muddling of the terms used around here. How can you purport that there exists a substance with an infinite amount of attributes? This touches upon your question and some other things you were saying before (of things being eternal) : Prop. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite att...

Kant wrote some on cosmology so maybe he meant something different in the quote other than just awe and orientation. Anyway besides the relation of immortality with the categorical imperative and why women wouldn't admire it, the will to immortitality may instead be a will to immortalize what is mor...

Only god has inherent existence (another thing you probably won't commit to) you could call it other names, that doesn't help very much in making what you are talking about more clear mixing it with time or other concepts could be even worse. God, nature, tao, are the same thing as long as by it one...

Not at all (following Spinoza) something false has no reality, you just doesn't have what it takes to work it out without ambiguities? (using logics and all, committing to self-causation) Here's what I've found where he addresses what I was talking about: Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and with...

He was referring to this line of kant "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me", there's this (possible commentary on it) by Nietzsche “As long as you still experience the stars as something "above you", you lack the eye of knowledge". The...