@dawnghost
First off, I just wanna say that I actually laughed while reading some of this; we seem to be going in circles using your logic which you think I'm using. Anyway, I'll reply without quoting everything seperately.
-the "my, my" was clearly balanced with the "But then again, we are all human, all too human," where I clearly acknowledge myself as just another human as well. (But if you wish to see my argument as arrogant, so be it).
-I have noticed that you keep referring to reason as an illusion. I never directly said that in my first post, but that is what you have inferred. So perhaps I should be a little more clear, and this will include a little more of my own personal philosophy to clear things up for you:
I don't believe in knowledge and I don't believe in existence. But I do differentiate between the physical world and metaphysical world. So physically, yes, I would say we're here (don't really want to use the word exist). And physically, reason works for us. Not as an illusion, but as logic. But metaphysically, there is no such thing as existence and there is no point to reason when there is nothing to gain. So when you ask if I'm trying to attain an objective truth, the answer is no I'm not. Or yet, I would say, "the truth is, there is no truth." And YES this is a paradox, by definition, but within the context of my philosophy.
-Please stop saying that I'm separating myself. I understand that my philosophy differs from others, but I'm not intentionally creating a hierarchy here, you are.
-I'm not shifting from "security" to "religion." I am saying that religion is an example of the security created/needed by people. And yes, I'm attacking all forms of knowledge. Even though I know knowledge "works" in our physical world (like you said the engineering of a plane), it doesn't work spiritually or above the physical aspects.
-The universe has not come to be by a cause...and I do not believe there to be a cause FOR it.
-You say, "And there's no paradox, it's clear that you want to argue against reason by using reason." Check again, a paradox can be a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
-I wouldn't call philosophy an
empty exercise in rhetoric. I feel that it satisfies our minds. But in the long run, of course we don't get anywhere. What are your thoughts on this? Where exactly do you feel we go with the discussion of philosophy. What are people searching for in spirituality?
-Look, when I say things like "get through to the mass," I am only speaking objectively. I don't mean to sound superior as you keep maligning me to be.
-Religions are weak because they are man-made concepts used to fill some kind of a void that the human "soul" feels. I don't know why and from where this void came to be in the first place. Here I will admit that those who do not feel this void are the stronger of mankind. And maybe some do feel it, but it's not a negative thing as society makes it to be.
Quote:
This is where you blur your entire argument. Let's see then.
1) We should free ourselves from illusions;
2) Reason is an illusion;
3) But we CAN'T get rid of reason because we are "rational" beings;
4) Since reason is an illusion, we come up with concepts such as God;
5) Concepts such as God makes us weak.
|
the first 4 of these premises are not what I think. Read above about my personal philosophy, that'll help explain a bit more, I hope.
-Yes, I would disagree with you even if you came up with a proof for god's existence. Because that is a metaphysical matter, and I've said, I don't believe in anything when it comes to that. If however, you showed me a proof of how 2 + 2 = 4, I will agree. Or even a proof of how it is possible for a rocket to launch into space. These are physical matters.
-My argument being a priori is correct. It is not linked to experience, it is above that. And I think what you are confusing me arguing for is the a posteriori, although you know my argument is a priori. So just know that I am arguing for the a priori as well. Knowledge works for the a posteriori, not for the a priori.
-To differentiate between "meaning" and "reason:" I mean reason as a synonym for logic and "meaning" as something someone looks for, not really as a purpose, but meaning that satisfies a thirst.
-If by positive case you mean that I should construct a proof, well I've never even thought of doing that...and I don't think it fits in the context of my philosophy since I am arguing that overall, there is no such thing as knowledge nor existence.
- (speaking metaphysically here) I am not
sure that the universe is absurd. And this, ironically works in my favor. Because nobody is sure about
anything and everyone constantly
looks for meaning, when meaning itself is man-made. And just the fact that this is the case, there exists nothing, or nothingness.
-And if the world is absurd, as I'm proposing it is, nothing can truly exist in it. Therefore, illusion itself doesn't exist.