|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:47 pm
"One cannot know that which is not - that is impossible."
~Parmenides of Elea~ I know, I shocked myself when I thought this too. Is to think of something to give it reality? For to think of something which is not (does not exist) one must be thinking of something: such a thing exists as an idea in one's mind, if not in the physical world, ergo, it cannot be said that it completely fails to exist. For example, I do not believe in the Christian God. Yet if I should think of a being who is the Christian God, then there must be something there for me to think about. One cannot think of (or "know) anything that does not exist (or "is not") for to think of it is to give it some semblance of existence. Thusly, the Christian God, in some way, manner or form, must exist, yes? Even if it is only as a concept. However, to think of anything that is is to think of something that is not, e.g., to say that X is not Y is to think of Y as being not, which Parmenides argues is impossible. Therefore the true nature of reality is a single, indivisible whole, for it is impossible to distinguish between one and another.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:49 am
I understand what you are saying. Truly anything that is talked about or thoughtabout is real because you are real. If you can think of it, it is real. That is why the word "real" can be sometimes confusing......at least to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:02 pm
It's clear to the modern thinker that Parmenides' reasoning is unsound, I suppose, but it's not until the late 19th century that negative existential claims would be properly understood. Still, it's a nice idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:13 pm
Galad Damodred "One cannot know that which is not - that is impossible."
~Parmenides of Elea~ I know, I shocked myself when I thought this too. Is to think of something to give it reality? For to think of something which is not (does not exist) one must be thinking of something: such a thing exists as an idea in one's mind, if not in the physical world, ergo, it cannot be said that it completely fails to exist. For example, I do not believe in the Christian God. Yet if I should think of a being who is the Christian God, then there must be something there for me to think about. Therefore, one cannot think of (or "know) anything that does not exist (or "is not") for to think of it is to give it some semblance of existence. Thusly, the Christian God, in some way, manner or form, must exist, yes? Even if it is only as a concept. However, to think of anything that is is to think of something that is not, e.g., to say that X is not Y is to think of Y as being not, which Parmenides argues is impossible. Therefore the true nature of reality is a single, indivisible whole, for it is impossible to distinguish between one and another. You're on the right track, keep looking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:20 am
No, I'm wrong. I've given the matter some thought, and it's clear to the modern thinker that Parmenides' reasoning is unsound, but it's not until the nineteenth century that negative existential claims were understood. I guess this just caught my eye because it's the earliest known attempt at deductive reasoning... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:01 pm
No, you are right. The Christian God must exist as a concept at least. How is that wrong? If I think that the sky is red, then the sky must be red as a concept. How else do people paint un-natural things? They imagine them as concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:42 pm
But if a thing exists as a concept and a concept only, then it can't be said to truly exist. You must understand that I define "existing" as meaning it can be perceived, [eventually] defined, measured and predicted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:18 pm
you could say that abotu any deity though not just the Cristian God. I'm refering to your last post btw Galad. on the other hand i bet i can predict God right now. God is going to spend the next few hundred years watching and wondering where he went so so verry wrong with the human race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:34 pm
*points to self* disgruntled satanist, remember?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:23 pm
Theistic or LaVeyan? I myself must admit to a certain fascination with Luciferianism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:06 pm
LaVeyan. although i still treat it more or less the way i treated Christianity, guidlines to a happy life rather than absolute rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:24 pm
I once gave a speech on the misrepresentation of Satanism by mainstream culture. Since the speech was in the Associated Catholic Colleges Public Speaking competition, you can imagine that it caused a bit of a stir. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:51 pm
galad you are my hero. althoguh i have a bit of a clarity issue with a girl on ny other guild seemed to think that there was a paralel between satanists and wiccans. you mind clearing it up i'm not in the mood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:55 pm
Uh... well, Wicca is a nature-worshipping fertility cult. They worship the balance in nature, of male-female, light-dark, yin-yang, summer-winter, embodied in the form of a God and a Goddess who represent the two halves of the universe. LaVeyan Satanism's teachings are based on individualism, social Darwinism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality. Unlike Theistic Satanism, which is rejected by the Church of Satan as Christian heresy rather than Satanism, it does not literally worship Satan, but rather uses "Satan" as a symbol for people's natural inner desires.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
