Apply PHILOSOPHY to the argument of the TRINITY

by Terry 76 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    Thank you for saying this because it is a glaring example of WRONG philosophy (Primacy of Consciousness)

    Of course it is wrong according to your primacy of existence standard. I don't think though it's very productive to restrict philosophy to this interpretation of philosophy, by doing so dismissing anyone before Socrates (Heraclitus, Protagoras) and post-WWII European continental philosophy (mainly poststructuralism). So, otoh, I would even argue a constructivist epistemology goes beyond the alleged dualism between primacy of consciousness and existence, which makes it definitely no example of the former as you indicate. Even the very notion of WRONG philosophy remains very elusive to me.

    When you look up in the night sky and see the moon--according to constructivism--you aren't seeing the moon at all---not objectively. You are "seeing" what your mind is constructing from the lightwaves which reach your brain which are interpreted as something we decide to call "moon".

    Yes, a shortcut as it were, useful, but "unreal".

    A CONCEPT is a very useful short-hand method of encompassing an infinite range of knowledge.

  • Terry
    Terry
    What I mean is that human cognition is limited.

    I wonder how you would go about demonstrating the absolute nature of that statement?

    Before Aristotle, what men thought was vastly inferior to his genius. Yet, afterward--logic had been birthed and so many more kinds of thoughts became possible.

    Before Newton, the same.

    Before Einstein, the same.

    And so on....

    Great thinkers open a door others may enter.

    Limits?

    I think not.

    We are also below a certain threshold, albeit a higher one.

    Well, there is always a chess champ, a fastest gun and a smartest person...until someone comes along who tops their achievements.

    I think you are saying something like: We have to be as smart as a Supreme Being to comprehend a Supreme Being.

    I don't think so. Not at all. We already top the Supreme Being because we invented it!

    But, we can surely agree to disagree on that one!

  • Terry
    Terry
    Teach a room full of low IQ, mentally handicapped individuals the scientific method--and you will never get a Principia, or any Annus Mirabilis papers. Planck invented quanta in his mind.

    I'm not sure what you think you're saying!

    Philosophy and Primacy of Existence is for the functioning rational mind. A non-functioning mind is not a refutation of Philosophy anymore than being born with no legs is a refutation of running the 3 minute mile.

    Planck did not invent quanta in his mind.

    Planck invented his description.

    If you don't see the difference I hesitate to explain it to you!

  • Terry
    Terry
    Of course it is wrong according to your primacy of existence standard. I don't think though it's very productive to restrict philosophy to this interpretation of philosophy, by doing so dismissing anyone before Socrates (Heraclitus, Protagoras) and post-WWII European continental philosophy (mainly poststructuralism). So, otoh, I would even argue a constructivist epistemology goes beyond the alleged dualism between primacy of consciousness and existence, which makes it definitely no example of the former as you indicate. Even the very notion of WRONG philosophy remains very elusive to me.

    Life is practical. A wrong philosophy is an impractical tool.

    Bringing a knife to a gunfight, as it were.

    Depends on the job you are doing which tool you need. A fork is fine for French Fries. It is pathetic when used for soup!

    Philosophy is an approach to thinking. It is also a methodology for thinking ABOUT thinking.

    When thinking is practical, the outcome is practicable.

    We live in an objective universe. Even if we don't choose to think so!

    I once knew a guy I worked with whose name was Bruce Arthur Glazer. (My middle name is "Art" his business card said.) Yes, we were in the Art business. Bruce, in his own mind, was a handsome man! He felt handsome and acted handsome. But, he was grossly overweight, wore rumpled, dirty clothes, never combed his balding head and sweat like a warthog.

    Bruce was a brilliant guy, great chef, superb astronomer, fabulous piano player and witty raconteur. He was a different kind of handsome!

    He could dazzle and entertain a young woman who might enter our gallery with his scintillating wit and charm! He'd have the most beautiful woman laughing and enjoying their conversation. Then, toward the end...he'd say, "Hey, this has been so much fun---why don't we have dinner some time!"

    I would watch this from the sidelines.

    The woman would start to nod her head yes with the smile still on her face........until.....a flicker of objectivity reached her eyes and-----perhaps for the very first time.....she would LOOK OBJECTIVELY at Bruce from an external aspect....

    The sweaty face, soaked wrinkled shirt, belly protruding through the unbuttoned shirtflap...scuffed shoes..........

    A dawning transformation of slow horror invaded the serene visage of her lovely expression until she caught herself and force the smile back up like a flag being hoisted to signal from afar.

    Excuses would be made....friendly...firm......as she backed away...slowly...faster.......faster.......boom! Gone in a flash.

    That's the difference between Primacy of Consciousness and Primacy of Existence in human terms all of an afternoon in an Art Gallery in Culver City, California :)

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Limits?

    I think not.

    So you believe that there are no limits to human knowledge and ability?

    That is an act of faith. It is not based on fact.

    Thank you for sharing your faith with me.

    BTS

  • Terry
    Terry
    So you believe that there are no limits to human knowledge and ability?

    In a functioning rational mind there has never been a limit to what can be grasped, integrated into useful conceptual form and applied in a practical way to advance humanity toward an ever more promising future.

    Why do you limit yourself?

    May I humbly suggest that religion plays a role in undermining man's view of himself by constantly berating him as a weak, sinful, imperfect wretch only deserving of scorn and useful only for praising a higher being while prostrate on the ground?

    If we are only suitable as God's lap poodles....well....I can see where your view might fit in with such a philosophy :)

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    A non-functioning mind is not a refutation of Philosophy anymore than being born with no legs is a refutation of running the 3 minute mile.

    Low IQ individuals are not non-functioning. They are functioning, at a lower IQ level and that is my point. You are functioning at a certain level also.

    "Quantized intelligence", if you will.

    BTS

  • Blueblades
    Blueblades

    Terry! Good game! As I was reading the topic and the responses,I thought of it as a chess match. On the one side you have a winner by checkmate and a loser by being checkmated. The one doing the checkmating is using primacy of existence. The one being checkmated is using primacy of consciousness. ( unknown to themselves until checkmated )

    However, there is another side to the chess game, and that is the stalemate. Which is an unresolved situation in which further action is impossible or useless, it is a deadlock. It results in a draw.

    I liken this part of the game ( the stalemate ) as the unknown factor or factors in quantum physics.

    Am I guilty of primacy of consciousness in using this illustration or correctly using primacy of existence in an illustrating way.

    For those who are using primacy of consciousness when it comes to the doctrine of the trinity may I suggest reading "The Doctrine of the Trinity" , Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound. by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting.

    Blueblades

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    I like the way you do that thing with the words, Burn.

    It's pretty cool.

    I think I see where you're coming from now.

    God bless.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    In a functioning rational mind there has never been a limit to what can be grasped, integrated into useful conceptual form and applied in a practical way to advance humanity toward an ever more promising future.

    That's because in a functioning rational mind everything that has been grasped and integrated into a useful conceptual form has been in the realm of the possible for a functional, rational human mind.

    The fastest human mile is 3:43.

    Horses regularly run it in less than two minutes.

    As I've said, your assertions are a matter of faith.

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit