/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7203141]

Did Spinoza, Hegel, Schelling, and Fichte believe in the same god? (When simplified to the pursuit of self-realizing through a process)

With the advancements in theoretical physics and basic laws of casualty in place is there anyway to disprove the existence of a god that reveals itself through progress towards it's own full realization?

Can we even deny that all matter seems to have some direction, whether we are aware of it, see it as random, or cannot perceive it? Isn't the fact that matter undergoes a process undeniable? which would tie back to the god mentioned by those four.

Any thoughts?

[Anonymous No.7203177]

I don't know but I'm hoping somebody does.

[Anonymous No.7203185]

>>7203141
fuck off gaythiest

[Anonymous No.7203189]

>basic laws of casualty
>all matter seems to have some direction, whether we are aware of it, see it as random, or cannot perceive it
>matter undergoes a process
>mfw

[Anonymous No.7203196]

Modern physics isn't an independent pursuit which accidentally gave credence to this idea of a self-developing universe. This pantheistic, evolutionary philosophy was adopted FIRST, and then the modern physicists sought to justify it.

[Anonymous No.7203203]

> Isn't the fact that matter undergoes a process undeniable? which would tie back to the god mentioned by those four.

Not really. Just because there are natural processes and ends does not mean that God is immanent in them, just as my hammer which has a process and end given to it by the human mind does not mean than the human mind is immanent in the hammer itself.

[Anonymous No.7203214]

Here's a somewhat thorough Catholic analysis of this idea.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a.htm

[Anonymous No.7203370]

>>7203196
I agree completely, I just think in light of developments in physics alongside the revolution in machine learning we are figuring out that throwing shit on a wall to see what happens (i.e. the scientific method) is neither a reliable or accurate indication of reality, and yet we are still taught the empirical approach to knowledge is an irrefutably accurate. I just don't know why idealism isn't discussed more considering recent developments.

[Anonymous No.7203382]

>>7203203
Stop anthropomorphizing god. Just stop. Stop capitalizing it, and stop limiting the concept to something as anecdotal as a guy hitting a hammer to a nail.

Read a the works and get the preconceived notions of god out of your head. Call it absolute ego, self-subsistant substance, god or whatever you want but don't bring it down to idiot level

[Anonymous No.7203405]

No. Spinoza didn't believe in Jesus.

[Anonymous No.7203443]

>>7203141
>mfw transubstantiation may not be far off from the truth

If God is immanent in both the material processes of the universe and also in the movement of consciousness in living beings, is there not some sense that communion is, to some extent, God's own pursuit of self-realisation (right up to the very limit of physical actualisation) through the process of ritual? Does God construct himself a corporeal form through the fantasies of the congregation?

[Anonymous No.7203490]

>>7203443
No, get a refresher on logical fallacies. Specifically,
- texas sharpshooter
- false cause
the amount of self-importance needed to think god shows up in a special cracker in a way any different than the rest of reality is ignorance beyond measure
- appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.7203549]

I found this essay by PKD bretty good (will post cont. if anyone's interested):

As to our reality being a projected framework -- it appears to be a projection by an artifact, a computerlike teaching machine that guides, programs, and generally controls us as we act without awareness of it within our projected world. The artifact, which I call Zebra, has "created" (actually only projected) our reality as a sort of mirror or image of its maker, so that the maker can obtain thereby an objective standpoint to comprehend its own self. In other words, the maker (called by Jakob Bohme in 1616 the Urgrund) is motivated to seek an instrument for self-awareness, self-knowledge, an objective opinion or appraisal and comprehension of the nature of itself (it is a vast living organism, intrinsically -- without this mirror -- without qualities or aspects, which is why it needs the empirical world as a reflection by which to "see" itself).

It constructed a reality-projecting artifact (or demiurge; cf. Plato and the Gnostics), which then, on command, projected the first stage of the world we know. The artifact is unaware that it is an artifact; it is oblivious to the existence of the Urgrund (in terms that the artifact would understand, the Urgrund is not, rather than is), and imagines itself to be God, the only real God.


Studying our evolving reality, the Urgrund more and more adequately comprehends itself. It must allow the reality-projecting artifact to continue to project an evolving reality no matter how defective and malshaped that reality is (during its stages) until finally that reality is a correct analog, truly, of the Urgrund itself, at which point the disparity between the Urgrund and the projected reality is abolished -- whereupon an astonishing event will occur: The artifact or demiurge will be destroyed and the Urgrund will assimilate the projected reality, transmuting it into something ontologically real -- and also making the living creatures in it immortal. This moment could come at any time, this entrance of the Urgrund into our otherwise spurious projected framework.

Zebra, the projecting energetic artifact, is close at hand, but it has occluded us not only to its actions but [also] to its presence. It has enormous -- virtually decisive -- power over us.
The prognosis for (fate of) our world is excellent: immortality and the final infusion of reality once it has reached the point of congruent analog to the Urgrund. But the fate of the artifact is destruction (unknown to it). But it is not alive, as we and the Urgrund are. We are moving toward isomorphism. The instant that precise isomorphism is reached, we at once bond to (are penetrated and assimilated by) the Urgrund, in a stunning flash of light: Bohme's "Blitz." March 1974 was not that moment, but rather Zebra the artifact adjusting its projected reality, it having gotten off course in its evolution toward isomorphism with the Urgrund (a purpose unknown to the artifact).

[Anonymous No.7203692]

>>7203490
>the amount of self-importance needed to think god shows up in a special cracker in a way any different than the rest of reality is ignorance beyond measure
Not what I was suggesting - it seems to me the cracker occupies as signifier for the 'physical' presence of God, which operates as a collective fantasy within the congregation. But if we are to consider OP's simplification of the aforementioned God of those particular philosophers, the believer's experience of the eucharist must be a process of self-realisation in of itself; the divine revelation of God in flesh and blood, in other words, materiality. The presence of God within the church is, nonetheless, an illusion. but if God is in all things, conscious or otherwise, as believers would assume: why do we not understand the collective fantasy occurring within divine rituals or ceremonies as a micro movement of God's 'self-realisation', insofar as conscious beings - who are just as much God as they are themselves - are capable of experiencing it through the act of self-delusion?

[Anonymous No.7203874]

>>7203141
You never actually read Hegel.

>disprove

[Anonymous No.7204796]

>>7203549
Interesting keep going, but very presumptuous and sounds like a religious text, the introduction of new words like "Zebra" is pretentious beyond measure.

>also making the living creatures in it immortal. This moment could come at any time, this entrance of the Urgrund into our otherwise spurious projected framework

doesn't this seem a little petty? wouldn't the living creative either be the Urgrund itself of part of its own deconstruction once it had come to full realization? And where is this "flash of light" and immortality of individuals coming from/based on? Also, what the hell is going on with substance here. So the god just floats in his separate plane of existence looking at a mirror that is essentially a heap of trash and whenever a scrap of that trash figures it out, it just get sucked up and becomes immortal? What is assimilated by the separate realm if we exist as empirical and physical beings? is this assuming the existence of a soul?and what about the rest of the trash? if "the Urgrund" is omniscient then there is a reason for each scrap in the pile, so what happens to all of that?

[Anonymous No.7204820]

>>7203370
can you expand on this?
What is the relationship between the physics, machine learning, and insight into the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.7205064]

>>7204820
Great ted talk about perception
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is

I'll try to find good overviews for the others as well

[Anonymous No.7205087]

>>7205064
thanks anon. this is perfect!

[Anonymous No.7205096]

>>7205064
>ted talk


I'm done with this place.

[Anonymous No.7205139]

>>7203189

> Hume

Try rationalizing Hume and actually doing science.

Protip: You can't.

It's why Kant had to roll back his crazy talk about casualty.

[Anonymous No.7206793]

>>7205139
well said