Christianity

[Dontaskme]

I believe that the universe is the body of God.

It is only through 'a body' that the 'I am' can be known to be. But who knows this?
Is it the body itself who knows it is the cause of all again births?

But he seems to understand what it means to be "born again."

''born again'' can only mean to be born of a body that must FIRST have always existed eternally, or else how could any second BODY be born? Here, a body cannot be born without a body to birth it. So who, or what, birthed the FIRST body that went on to birth again and again?

See how when we try to 'know thyself', we can only arrive at a half truth?
We cannot know the absolute because all truth claims can only relate to what is absolute - rendering all 'relative truth claims' about what is always absolute ...an absurdity.


.

[Harry Baird]

[Colourisation added for ease of response]

If you think metaphysics can provide clarity to live life well, I certainly wouldn't try to negate it. For me, to live life well is a matter of custom, morals and ethics; qualities which are not completely precluded from metaphysics though I have no idea what type of metaphysic clarifies the complexities inherent in these very human operations except as a kind of mandate, however temporary, to establish its conditions.

I even think that they are best considered to be part of metaphysics, although that's not the common understanding. Maybe I'm just categorically confused, philosophically! At the least, I can - hopefully - plausibly suggest this: morals and ethics owe a lot of their basis to an underlying metaphysical understanding.

Oh, I think that such a mandate is best intended as a permanent establishment of conditions. The metaphysician determines - to the best of his/her ability - that which is universally true; that which "lies behind" all things; that in which "first principles" consist, and from there determines the ethics that follow.

I'm more in tune with the ancient Chinese philosophers who considered so-called ultimate questions metaethically in the sense of "what should be done", in the context of our existence here and the choices we make. But that's a separate subject.

Perhaps it is, but in my - perhaps - confusion, I tend to think that metaphysics and metaethics are more related than you seem to suggest there.

You misconstrue. It was a general statement, which also includes me, as to what philosophy forums are really for or default to most of the time. It's simply a more specialized social media outlet to which anyone can post his or her thoughts regardless of how absurd or brilliant. People love sports whether physical or mental; philosophy is merely one instance of it testing the gymnastic power between different mentalities.

Oh, yes, not to worry - I understood that much: philosophy on philosophy forums as a form of playful mental exercise, rather than as a serious attempt to arrive at truth. It's perhaps a little more cynical than I would have put it myself, but I do understand where you're coming from.

[Dontaskme]

owe a lot of their basis to an underlying metaphysical understanding.

There is no such 'understanding' as a 'metaphysical understanding'. All understandings ARE of a physcial nature, understanding comes from the world of physics only, which are the properties of matter and energy, which is all that can be known.


There is no ''after'' or ''beyond'' or ''first principles''

There is only here right now the only knowing there is, which is physical in nature. Without a material body, nothing is known. Brains matter, brains never not matter.

[Harry Baird]

[Colorisation added again for ease of response]

There is no such 'understanding' as a 'metaphysical understanding'. All understandings ARE of a physcial nature, understanding comes from the world of physics only, which are the properties of matter and energy, which is all that can be known.

There is no ''after'' or ''beyond'' or ''first principles''

There is only here right now the only knowing there is, which is physical in nature. Without a material body, nothing is known. Brains matter, brains never not matter.

And via these propositions, you affirm your own first principles.

But OK, OK: that's a little cheap of me, since the first principles you affirm are self-limiting. Let me, then, offer a more positive counter-argument:

The experiential is - by definition - not physical. It might be correlated with the physical, but there is good evidence that there is more to it than that. There are also ontological categories such as the conceptual, the logical, the mathematical, etc etc (the three of which are, of course, closely related), which, too, are not physical. Thus, there is more to reality than the physical, and, thus, there is scope for metaphysical understanding.

[Dontaskme]

[Colorisation added again for ease of response]

There is no such 'understanding' as a 'metaphysical understanding'. All understandings ARE of a physcial nature, understanding comes from the world of physics only, which are the properties of matter and energy, which is all that can be known.

There is no ''after'' or ''beyond'' or ''first principles''

There is only here right now the only knowing there is, which is physical in nature. Without a material body, nothing is known. Brains matter, brains never not matter.

And via these propositions, you affirm your own first principles.

But OK, OK: that's a little cheap of me, since the first principles you affirm are self-limiting. Let me, then, offer a more positive counter-argument:

The experiential is - by definition - not physical. It might be correlated with the physical, but there is good evidence that there is more to it than that. There are also ontological categories such as the conceptual, the logical, the mathematical, etc etc (the three of which are, of course, closely related), which, too, are not physical. Thus, there is more to reality than the physical, and, thus, there is scope for metaphysical understanding.

First principles belong to the imagined world of duality, they are as empty as a dream.

Actual reality is empty of all imagined first principles.

There is no such thing as a metaphysical understanding.

[henry quirk]

Call it Zeno's Longevity.
still gotta sleep, though...later, folks

Aha. I think I now have an inkling as to the technique. Awaken for an hour; sleep for an hour, and - presto - one is awarded two more hours of life. Repeat ad nauseam for endless middle age.

Actually, the secret is coffee & cigarettes...lots and lots of coffee & cigarettes...and nutritionally balanced foods like Spam and ramen...mostly, though: lots of coffee & cigarettes.

[Harry Baird]

the imagined world of duality

You tell me I'm wrong; I tell you I'm right. There's a duality right there, beyond the imagined.

Actual reality is empty of all imagined first principles.

And so, we have reality versus "actual" reality. There's another duality right there.

And when I tell you that I disagree with the "emptiness" of first principles, what's the outcome? That's right: yet another duality. One of us is right, and the other is wrong, and that's no mere imagining.

There is no such thing as a metaphysical understanding.

Meh. However cheaply: that's a metaphysical understanding in and of itself. It denies that which it, itself, uncomprehendingly comprises!

[Harry Baird]

Actually, the secret is coffee & cigarettes...lots and lots of coffee & cigarettes...and nutritionally balanced foods like Spam and ramen...mostly, though: lots of coffee & cigarettes.

I see. It's a lot harder than it looks. Who on Earth can consume that amount of coffee and cigarettes? Cor blimey.

[Dontaskme]

the imagined world of duality

You tell me I'm wrong; I tell you I'm right. There's a duality right there, beyond the imagined.

Actual reality is empty of all imagined first principles.

And so, we have reality versus "actual" reality. There's another duality right there.

And when I tell you that I disagree with the "emptiness" of first principles, what's the outcome? That's right: yet another duality. One of us is right, and the other is wrong, and that's no mere imagining.

There is no such thing as a metaphysical understanding.

Meh. However cheaply: that's a metaphysical understanding in and of itself. It denies that which it, itself, uncomprehendingly comprises!

I'm not saying you are wrong or right...I'm simply expressing my own self bias about what I think and believe I know.

In my opinion, there is no such understanding as a meta understanding.

You are welcome to say there is...but that will mean nothing to me.

I'm just saying....

We can show each other our ideas...but only you can know your own mind and what feels right for you. We can never know another mind. And so it's none of our business to even think we can, we have no business changing another persons mind..

[henry quirk]

Actually, the secret is coffee & cigarettes...lots and lots of coffee & cigarettes...and nutritionally balanced foods like Spam and ramen...mostly, though: lots of coffee & cigarettes.

I see. It's a lot harder than it looks. Who on Earth can consume that amount of coffee and cigarettes? Cor blimey.

Immortality is hard work.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nota Bene: Supply chain issues apparently resolved, Australia unloaded 50 containers full of Energy Drinks.

[Harry Baird]

I'm not saying you are wrong or right...I'm simply expressing my own self bias about what I think and believe I know.

You're simply being tricksy here, DAM, because, despite what you say here, you quite clearly are telling me that I'm wrong. I affirmed the reality of a metaphysical understanding underlying ethics, and you said that there's no such thing (as a metaphysical understanding). That's quite a clear disagreement between us, and a dualistic one to boot.

(Note: what "dualism" means remains to be hashed out between us).

[Harry Baird]

Immortality is hard work.

Not to worry, just consult with AJ. He's a high-level master of immortality via energy drinks. He has helped me out no end in this respect. Can't thank you enough, AJ, for your metaphysical understanding of caffeine.

[Dontaskme]

I'm not saying you are wrong or right...I'm simply expressing my own self bias about what I think and believe I know.

You're simply being tricksy here, DAM, because, despite what you say here, you quite clearly are telling me that I'm wrong. I affirmed the reality of a metaphysical understanding underlying ethics, and you said that there's no such thing (as a metaphysical understanding). That's quite a clear disagreement between us, and a dualistic one to boot.

(Note: what "dualism" means remains to be hashed out between us).

It's tricky, yeah...you are right...it's tricky being yourself, because you never know yourself unless there are two of you.

Now all you've got to figure out is who is the authentic ( right ) self and who is the imposter (wrong) un.

[Harry Baird]

It's tricky, yeah...you are right...it's tricky being yourself, because you never know yourself unless there are two of you.

Argh. Two of one? That makes no sense!

Now all you've got to figure out is who is the authentic ( right ) self and who is the imposter (wrong) un.

Dude! There can only be one of me!

Honestly, and I don't like to be rude, but it's like you've asked yourself, "How best can I get away with saying the most outrageously illogical things, and not get called out for them? Oh, I know! I can spruik them on a philosophy forum!"