2- Why do most of Idealists Theists imagine God as something aside from the Universe ?

I think I will unsubscribe this thread now. I do understand where Pythagorean was coming from, and the points he wanted to raise, because I am sympathetic to his perspective. I think there were some pretty good arguments put forward for the idealist perspective, which went unanswered (as distinct from 'ridiculed'). Those who ridicule it, have little understanding of it and are afraid to look foolish if they say anything serious. So it is easier to trivialise it or engage in scatalogical humor.

/bye

Direct question: do you have any knowledge of the various philosophies which depict mind or intelligence as the 'fundamental ground' of reality?

essence could be described as a spirit;particular force and how it shifts the mood within thinking, and such is creative act/experience and the key is harmonizing as we think----this is why we love music, is it not?

yes, essence would be one half of man as "spirit" or "unnamable" collision of essence and accident. wittgenstein proves that all thought is accident in relation to the transcendental essence/root logical structure of the human mind.

music is continuous, unlike concept. yes, it gives us what the concept cannot. in a way, schopenhauer was right. but "Wille" is too damn specific. what is required is a negative ontology, that does not define the transcendental, except to the degree that it reveals its structure. after all, all of our definitions are arguable imposed by this transcendental...(the namer can never name itself, as the namer is outside of space and time, a transcendental....

Take the accident out of it...accident is phenomena...there are no true accidents...how could it ? :rolleyes:

Because we all live different lives. But accident is synthesized by self-consciousness as self-consciousness of negative ontology relatavizes distinctions such as self and other, mind and matter, time, cause, etc. The final synthesis is "it's" self-consciousness as the imposer of all forms immersed in qualia.

Real life still requires pragmatism, natural science, our cultural heritage of cause and self, self and other, as all these ideas were useful, and are still useful...but a pure and logical ontology recognizes all distinctions as contingent. And this is utterly sublime. As Witt said, whatever we can think is logical. But this logic is immersed in qualia, which makes anything but formal logic an imperfectly true, or partially accidental, statement.
The TLP is negative metaphysics. All thought is accidental. The only non-accidental thought is the recognition of this. As this is the recognition of our essence AS essence, as the imposer of essence. The TLP is the best book in 20th century philosophy, except perhaps for Kojeve. But the TLP is utterly minimal, and nails only at the absolute core of the matter. It's a silver bullet. I couldn't understand it until Kojeve gave the dope on H. Wittgenstein is the square root, the essence of Hegel's radical logic.

I suspect that both thinkers are so radical that few people have truly understood either of them. I count myself lucky. It's a stong & brilliant case. Utterly logical. That's why the cross is a great myth. The incarnation. Hegel is a sort of monism, but I like "nonism" for this monism essentially negates itself. Just as w humans are always rethinking things. It's our essence. -1

Amen to that. From there, hopefully a stimulus in optimizing individual karma thus optimizing social/universal karma could really increase prosperity of man kind. I have found one way to do this but don't assume or even insist it would work for anybody else except a source of great inspiration.

That's not the issue. The issue is that you do not know the origin of the process that leads to the existence of human minds. And you are in effect saying that anyone who disagrees with you is making an unreasonable argument. Isn't that what your position comes down to?

Why does one look in the mirror and focus on their face as who they are? Why not the chest, it is a much larger and more prominent part of the body. Does who you are have something to do with your face? Is that why you look in the mirror and see yourself in such a way?

Can we agree that in thousands of years of philosophical wit we still do not have the answer and continue to debate the same old same old?

I can't agree. I think that certain philosophers are close enough to the "truth" on this issue that they deserve a cigar. The appearance/reality distinction is a confusion tolerated for its utility. A person can live and die in such confusions, and probably happily enough, despite that famous "unexamined life is not worth living" line.

How about a cigar for Ortega y Gasset:

"Appearance" is the form that "reality" takes during the act of "perception." This is true of the "perception" of so-called "physical" phenomena, such as sensations, as well as of so-called "mental" phenomena, such as thoughts.

It "appears" to me that this is explains the contrast between "appearance" and "reality".

:flowers:

It appears to me as I gaze into the mirror that I am the most handsome man on the face of the earth. Of course the reality you see when you look at me may have a different conclusion. And also, I, or what I really am, has nothing to do with the facade I see in the mirror. When I put a mask on my face and look in the mirror am I not the same person? How is that possible when I am looking at a different face? Obviously the appearance you see has nothing to do with the reality of who you are. And yet we all recognize each other mainly by our faces. There are other characteristics which those who are familiar with us can recognize like dress and stride for instance, but the details of the face make it easier to eliminate similarities with other people.

And yet, even when disguised somehow, our friends may not recognize us, but we are still who we are, whether they know us or not. Reality is not a matter of appearance. Reality does not take form based upon appearances or perceptions. In my halloween costume the reality is I am still me, no matter how you would perceive it.


Reconstructo,

Exactly what truth have these philosophers gotten close to? I am not familiar with any that have discovered or proven the origin of creation or life. There are many suppositions and opinions, but no absolutes.