Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:51 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 03:49 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  It may be a new thesis but how do you define that to be good?

I agree it's not an if but when - and I actually think that the conflict is constant to a greater or lesser degree

Since the new synthesis has no conflicting ideas, everyone will be in agreement to it.

Does that make it good?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:42 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Atheism rose as the natural antithesis to theism. Dialectics say that the two must and shall collide violently to form a synthesis that destroys both philosophies by eliminating the bad and leaving only the good. What do you feel that the synthesis is, or will be, and what type of violent collision do you think it will be, or was? I personally feel that the two ideas collided many years ago when Sakyamuni Buddha uttered that the Earth was his witness, because it showed that the true power was the universe itself but also that man can become spiritually elevated. What do you think?
I think nobody here knows who or what is Sakyamuni Buddha.

Anyway, I have done some looking into this synthesis. It'd definitely doable and will be done with due (big) expenditure of time, money, expertise, equipment and dying out of old scientists on important positions. In other words, the normal course of history. Right now the history is busy with downfall of democracies and dominant currency, possibly also the ecosystem. Give the history some breathing space and it will synthesize what seems like opposites right now. Hopefully I will be there to help the process.

Yes, as DLJ says, atheism is not a philosophy, it's an application of philosophy to one question, is there a theistic, religious god? (Nope)
I wish atheists were philosophers, they'd be atheists about more things than just gods. They're skeptical, but most of all about natural sciences, not about social sciences.

If there is anything that deserves to be called God, it's the idea of singularity, of infinity, of this unimaginable paradox that our universe seems to come from. I believe that in some way the original singularity may still exist, even though it's so long after the Big Bang. If the universe is a multiverse, it's a necessity to avoid infinite regression, for which there is not enough energy. But that is more of a Hindu thought, cosmic cycles of God's breath in and breath out. The singularity would also solve the problem of what the universe expands into, or rather it would make the question meaningless, if I get my topology right.

*Shakyamuni- sorry, they are spelled similarly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:52 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 03:51 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Since the new synthesis has no conflicting ideas, everyone will be in agreement to it.

Does that make it good?

Well, no-one would oppose it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:54 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 03:52 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  Does that make it good?

Well, no-one would oppose it.

Doesn't make it good though - and indeed we could only define it as good or bad if we had two opposing views. This is in many ways the Taoist yin-yang principle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:56 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 03:54 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Well, no-one would oppose it.

Doesn't make it good though - and indeed we could only define it as good or bad if we had two opposing views. This is in many ways the Taoist yin-yang principle.

That's the insight I was pointing out. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:22 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  It seems like we're getting off topic and Taqqiya Mockingbird is descending into useless semantic nitpicking. Tongue

Not in the least. What I'm doing is calling you on the bullshit you are spouting.



Quote:[Image: dialectic.jpg]

Here's a dialectical diagram, the kind Hegel would've used I think.

Meaningless drivel. And just who is this Victor Zammit crackpot, whose rant page your diagram comes from?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014 08:11 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:41 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 03:34 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  I disagree with your assertion that if the two collide they will destroy each other.

Furthermore - if such a destruction were to happen - why do you assert that what would result would be good?

It's not an if, it's a when.

Because some delusional moron on Teh Internetz says so? Hobo


Quote:The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths and forming a new thesis, starting the process over.

Meaningless. Word. Salad. Atheism doesn't have any "common truths" with theism.


Dude. Lay off the crack pipe.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think nobody here knows who or what is Sakyamuni Buddha. (Wiki says it was prince Gautama? OK.)

I do, and yes, the mahayanists and the tibetan-woo-believers call him "Shakyamuni" or "Sakyamuni". This is to distinguish him from the pantheon of made-up "buddhas" they invented after Brahmanism absorbed Buddhism and turned it into a sticky, smelly mess of woo.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 02:10 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 02:24 PM by phil.a.)
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(01-07-2014 05:42 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Atheism rose as the natural antithesis to theism. Dialectics say that the two must and shall collide violently to form a synthesis that destroys both philosophies by eliminating the bad and leaving only the good. What do you feel that the synthesis is, or will be, and what type of violent collision do you think it will be, or was? I personally feel that the two ideas collided many years ago when Sakyamuni Buddha uttered that the Earth was his witness, because it showed that the true power was the universe itself but also that man can become spiritually elevated. What do you think?

I agree that dialectics says the two must come together in opposition and from that create a synthesis, I disagree that either pole will be "destroyed" though. Actually, I would say the poles remain in reality to hold the tension between which the synthesis exists. So the synthesis transcends but includes the partial perspectives from which it is constituted.

I don't see the synthesis in buddhism. Although buddhism does not use the "god" concept, it is still very much concerned with an exploration of the absolute through an enquiry into one's own consciousness. I don't think it really matters if you call what you find there "god the father" or "sunyata", these are just different labels for the same thing.

I personally think the dialectical integration of theism and atheism is just happening now, and arrives through Integral meta-perspectives.

Integral meta-perspectives consider athiesm and theism as relative human perspectives, by relativising them to the individual's psychology, their relative truth claims can be integrated without conflict.

An (Integral) meta-perspective provides a synthesis of (relative) perspectives, so dimensionally - meta-perspective is a higher order of cognitive complexity to "perspective".

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 02:38 PM by phil.a.)
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 08:05 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Meaningless. Word. Salad. Atheism doesn't have any "common truths" with theism.

That's completely true in terms of conceptual content, but it's possible to go a bit deeper into it than just looking at conceptual content.

Both theism and atheism are examples of the same thing, they are both human perspectives. So at that point of extreme abstraction, they are both "the same thing".

It's a bit like saying - on a coin, "heads" is the opposite of "tails" and therefore has nothing in common with it. Well certainly the designs of each side of the coin are totally different designs, the content is different so so nothing apparently in common.

But actually they are both just part of one single coin.

Conceptually, the concept of "coin" integrates (or provides a synthesis for) both separate sides of the coin.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: