/lit/ - Literature

>>19011050
Damn it, you've convinced me. Praise Plato!

>>19011050
Cool blogpost, christer.

>>19011050
>Absolute
>God
>Infinite
>Perfection
Words words words, but what do they MEAN?

>>19011108
>Absolute
a Idea referring to that which contains the essences of all other beings
>God
The metaphysical source of all existence
>Infinite
Not finite, alternatively an element in a set that when compared to other elements, is greater then all finite elements
>Perfection
Idea referring to that which contains no deficiency

>>19011169
Ah so you're a Spinozist chad. I was worried for a second

>>19011182
Spinoza is actually pretty cringe desu, too pantheistic, and never extended the idea of personhood to God.

>>19011169
>a Idea referring to that which contains the essences of all other beings
But what is an idea, an essence and a being?
>The metaphysical source of all existence
What is metaphysical? What is existence?
>Not finite, alternatively an element in a set that when compared to other elements, is greater then all finite elements
How can there be a number of all finite elements? If infinity is constant than it is finite, and infinity is not constant, what is it?
>Idea referring to that which contains no deficiency
Fair.

>>19011208
>god has personhood
ngmi, better luck next lifetime

Holy shit, words!

>>19011320
okay, give me you theory or personhood, and explain why it dosent apply to god

>>19011642
>>19011320
*okay, give me your theory of personhood, and explain why it dosent apply to god

typos

>>19011289
idea is the immediate apprehension of the mind, an essence is a union of an ideas notion and it unintelligible character. a being is that which has ontological value

metaphysical is the reality behind appearance, existence is the unity of all ontological objects

>How can there be a number of all finite elements?
because you haven't given me an argument for why number need to be finite, and whenever there is no reason to doubt an idea exists, it more plausibly exists.

Infinity is constant.

All of this is pretty much philosophy 101 anon

>>19011642
You can't be "absolute" and have "personhood," unless you're just spamming words on the basis of your grab-bag theology. What sort of person would be completely uncontacted with his surroundings and incorporeal, without extension, without appearance, free from all influences and stimuli or volition, not part of any society (which would mutually confer him with personhood), etc. It's just nonsense.

>>19011692
Obviously God doesn't have what I would call finite personhood, but look at the essence of a human person. Person have identities, and creativity, ie. they create things in lower relationship to themselves. they also have reason, morality, and consciousness, the core attributes of God. So I guess the better way to put it would be God is a superperson.

Person's have their being on account of their relationship to other people, and the relationships between the things that are ontologically related.

Im also really surprised that you would say that persons are not "incorporeal, without extension" etc. These are all the things that make a person a person. If you lose your arm, do you lose your personhood? No. I therefore follows personhood is not contingent upon your body. Another thing worth pointing out is you have a very cringe definition of personhood because under your view, persons cannot exist without a society, which is demonstrably false.

>>19011050
The source of being and non-being is the One. Christians will seethe, but it is the highest truth.

>>19011050
>all else is materialist chatter
Cool way of dismissing criticism anon.

>>19011772
>The source of being and non-being is the One. Christians will seethe, but it is the highest truth.
semantics, God reaches all people through decorating words and symbols so that the maximal amount of people freely understand him.

If the word "God" was replaced with "shoe" he would still be God.

>>19011050
yall might fuck around an show me the light of God if you keep this up

>>19011761
>Im also really surprised that you would say that persons are not "incorporeal, without extension" etc. These are all the things that make a person a person.
God doesn't have these things, being "absolute," so why is he a "person"?
>If you lose your arm, do you lose your personhood? No. I therefore follows personhood is not contingent upon your body.
Literally everything you've ever known or thought is contingent upon your body, what you consider good (for you) or bad (for you) relies upon it for verification, as it is extended into space and your means of experiencing the world and developing a sense of... personhood
>Another thing worth pointing out is you have a very cringe definition
Fucking retard lmao
>persons cannot exist without a society, which is demonstrably false
You need a collective in order to identify as individual against that collective. If there were no other PEOPLE you wouldn't even bother being a PERSON. Why would it matter what other entities recognized of you or what you recognized as yourself contra those entities if they were not there? Is the void going to act on you in such a way that you are diminished or increased in your powers and enjoyment? No people, no persons.

>>19011772
But non-being doesn't exist? If it could we wouldn't be here.

>>19011208
>and never extended the idea of personhood to God.
That's exactly what makes him right

>>19011806
The world is not full of symbols but the world itself is a singular symbol of the aspect of God. You are thinking about signs which are hidden within the unifying (gathering of multiplicity) symbol of God's essence. The genesis of the symbolique has its foundation in the first separation of God (when we were concepts within the consciousness of God and then were separated with material) and it is through the destruction of symbols (fanaa') that we attain knowledge of the aspect of God through the finite modes. This is why the incarnation is faulty because the sign is hidden within the sign hidden within the symbolic which disconnects us from divinity.

I love these threads, literal shortcuts to philosophy.

>>19011050
>Absolute being
>conditioned by being
>a being amongst other beings
The Absolute has to be prior to and beyond being itself, otherwise it is conditioned by being. Platonism 101.

>>19011666
evil trips of not giving a satisfactory answer

all this talk about ground and no one has given a satisfying answer to why things are neccesarily the way they are instead of another way. the skeptic remains justified

>>19011050
>Goodness, Beauty, Perfection, Intuition, Faith are all emanations of God's essence
>emanations of God's essence
OH NO NO NO

>>19013778
>skeptic remains justified
Not according to the Logos.

>He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
(John 12:48)

>And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:16)

>>19013778
yes he is. everyone and each one is justified by their own ontology: one is damned by it or saved by it.

>>19014408
>by their own
Cringe. Everyone is justified or saved exclusively by unity with the Logos.

>>19014453
there is no 'the logos': 'the real' is personalized (the L is real moment). you touch 'the real' individually according to your own level of refinement and development.

>>19014504
>'the real' is personalized
do schopenhauerfags really?

>>19014504
>personalized
Logos is personal by nature, He is the Son of the Father, not a cringe "personalisation" of some abstract principle.

>>19014716
'spersonalized', based retard.

The Absolute is beyond all language and comprehension, no matter how eloquently you talk about It, your explanation will amount to some vague metaphors at best (pointing towards It, but never grasping it), or a pathetic parody at worst. I feel like giving It any sort of personhood is an example of the latter, but of course I cannot know.
"The dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao."

>>19015001
>"The dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao."
This is true, because God's action is communicable (but not separated from God), but His Essence is entirely uncommunicable. The communicable is not a parody and not even a vague pointer, it is more than that, since it is proceeding from the Essence, but it's still not the Essence, whom only God knows for what it is.

>>19013011
maybe he should of realized the beauty of transcendent personhood instead of trying some cringe ultimate abstraction

>>19014396
>>19014408
sorry i thought this was a discussion thread. based blind believers

>>19015001
cant you just say its limitless? you dont have to comprehend fully what that entails but it would be accurate, no? unless ur a dumb rationalist and believe in logical neccesity

>>19016179
>ant you just say its limitless
That is already saying something.

>>19016179
Names like Eternal and Limitless are as good as it gets when it comes to language, but the name that can be named is not the eternal name. Saying it's limitless is "accurate" in the sense that it doesn't have a humanly comprehensible limit, and also because the concept this name refers to really is incomprehensible, but once you say it, you already lost it, because the name evokes an image in your mind that is very much limited, which can only serve as a pointer.

>>19013778
read Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics is fairly brief and straightforward

>>19013778
>skepticism
BTFO by Hegel

>>19013778
if you're a true skeptic then you wouldn't even believe that things are

>>19013778
>no one has given a satisfying answer to why things are neccesarily the way they are instead of another way. the skeptic remains justified
what? this is literally what the skeptics claim. Theists lower their epistemological standard to opt for my plausibility arguments based on modal logic and the like.

>>19016678
*more not my

my point is basically skep

>>19016678
>>19016689
my point is skeptics have a ridiculous standard for knowledge thats completely unlivable and inconsequential

>>19016678
>Theists lower their epistemological standar
lol.
no.
my epistemological standard is God Himself. What He says is truth.

>>19016726
How do you know that the bible is his word?

>>19016740
By direct experience.

>>19016778
do you have empirical demonstration or logical argumentation for your claim of knowledge of the word of God?

>>19016795
>empirical
What do you mean?
>logical argumentation
Yes, but your mind would not be able to accept it from a position of a skeptic.

>>19016824
>empirical
subject to sensory investigation with science
>logical argumentation
give the argument then

>>19011050
Christfags are like kindergarteners that talk about how their dad is the strongest, tallest, bestest man there is.

>>19017210
its because god puts the love of greatness in every human being, isnt that pretty cool anon

Jay Dyer proves all of you Spinozists, pantheists, atheists, agnostics, luciferians, gnostics, and new agers wrong.

>>19017862
Jay Dyer has never refuted the metaphysics of Guenon (pbuh)

>>19011050
All a non sequitur and begging the question. We "know" faith, perfection, and such are emanations of God's essence? How do we know? How do you know the infinite and express that truth, if you are going to be such a triumphalist?

>>19011050
how do people go from this to "god is a kike on a stick"

>>19011050
God is beyond description, he cannot simply be the ground of being. The ground of being is nothingness. God's gift is existence, a ray of light that raises us to be something.

>>19017849
No it's not. Modern world is his doing. Now go kneel in front of christian negroes.