Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Everybody,
This is just an opinion. A strange one at that because I have not often seen somebody agree and deny the same theory in one sentence.
Edit: You have added to your original post. Your statement about my referal to Aristotle is incorrect, though I admire the man, there was no such reference. First cause is what they often state as neccessity to understanding reality, many call it god.
Arjen,
Could you explain the above statement, we all put forward our opinions do we not, the nature of the medium. This seems somewhat passive aggresive in nature. Seeing as it is to my post you take acception to, try dealing with it first hand.
Boagie,
It is because you state so boldy that the first mover is a myth. There are many who would disagree. The thoughtline in itself is also very important in discovering what is taking place. Saying such things seems to me to be counterproductive in this case.
The first cause is the big bang... is it not?
even at that, there is nothing to say that the big bang was the begining to everything.
Ok, but I was still taught that it is not possible that the universe is infinite so my first cause is still the start of matter, time and energy.
Actually, this is all taking place on the outside of an empty pop-can lying in some gutter somewhere--just kidding---lol!!
Arjen,
I disagree! If you wish to place god into your equation, join the very large lineup around the cosmic corner.
Nameless,
Action as apposed to reaction, action is a god like deed, indicating dishonestly of full autonomy.
Reaction on the other hand acknowledges your relation to everything in existence.
Are you saying that we, as people, in your opinion, never actually (honestly) 'act', but are completely 'limited' to 'reacting'? Buy "dishonesty of full autonomy" (if we have partial 'autonomy'... autonomous of/from what?... wouldn't 'partial' allow for 'some' acts?) are you refering to an individual, (believing the illusion that he is) seperate and disconnected from all that is, autonomous? Why the qualifier "full"? And how is it 'dishonesty' if the 'actor/reactor' honestly thinks/believes he is autonomous?
Sooo, nothing in the universes 'acts', everything 'reacts', implying that 'free-will/choice/deliberate behavior' is not actually possible, from your perspective?
Nameless,
Yes you are completely limited to reaction, it is your function as the subject object relation, there is no such thing as autonomy, there is no such thing as freewill, there are but choices in the way you might react, for as stated earlier, even inacton/non-reaction to an object or situtation is by defination a reaction. Reality is relational, reaction is the engine that drives the relational nature of all reality. It is dishonest, or perhaps ignorant, for anyone to claim autonomy, autonomy from what it is fair to ask, autonomy from the context of nature, the context of reality, it can be nothing but wishful thinking, though as I stated earlier, it is not even desirable nonsense, it is simply nonsense. Trying to touch on all your points, deliberate behaviour, yes, there is deliberate behaviour in deciding upon the choice between reactions, but even action is a reaction to intent, which is a reaction to a condition or situtation. There is no cause and effect, it is all reaction. That we can dwell on a little more as the thread develops. Did I miss anything, let me know if I have.
Boagie, this is merely because humans have physical properties. There are more parts to humans. These are not causal. If that were not true, try to explain denial, creation, etc. etc.
and/or the nature of reality.:eek: If you have a question, I shall try to accommodate with an adequate reply.
Arjen,
I'm a little confused with the use of 'nature' and 'god' in your post...
do you mean nature as 'the material world' and god as 'creator'?
And yeh I'd like to talk about eeeverything!
Dan.
Boagie, I had posted the remark because I want you to question your view on the matter. The reason I did is because we cannot accurately say what "nature" (a.k.a.) "God" is like in reality. We can, however, be sure that human ontology (reflected in epistemology) necessarily reflects a part of "nature", since we are a part of it. So, since humans can "create" in the sense that "inspired" arts exist, since every human "springs out of nothing" (so to speak), "existence" must have some grounds to exist or be created (because time has an influence on it and so it does not exist outside of time) necessity dictates another part of the whole both in beings and in "creation" as a whole.
I often argue that both are the same, but I think that will be too much for now. Perhaps I should create a topic on "everything". What do you think?
In this case I ment that "nature" and "God" are the same and mean "everything". I am using this pantheistic approach because I think This is Boagie's view on things.
I will see about that topic on "everything".
Arjen,
Actually, it is not that difficult to grasp, most people accept the theory of cause and effect in its utter simplicity, Cause bumps into something and effects it. This realy does not explain much, and is more like a place holder for who might come along and be willing to think about it. The fact that subject and object are the basis of apparent reality, and the fact that they cannot be separated is the first hint at the nature of reality. After one realizes the nihilistic truth that the physical world is devoid of all meaning in the absence of a subject it begins to fine tune your idea of nature, the only thing left standing after the nihilistic realization is the fact that, all of reality is relational, so, in the presence of change, of transformation, what is happening, it is reaction, reaction is the drive engine of all relational reality.
Arjen,
I only think in Pantheistic terms in the sense that I believe the universe to be an open system, the view of a totality is not our perspective, but perhaps this impersonal, this elemental totality, is our creator:) as the thing-in-itself, the totality, our name is legion,as totality.
Obsurity does not equal enlightenment.
