What creates suffering if god created the world ?
I wish to talk about suffering in the general world sense such as earthquakes, financial hardships, dictator cruelties and personal sense such as depressions, illnesses, disease etc.
I think this question ties up to the problem of evil and why it exists for if god is indeed perfect (which Im not sure he is) then why is there imperfection in the world such as evil for example.
Well Im gonna try to answer this. Firstly a perfect being does not imply that the creatures he creates such as animals and men and plants are as perfect as he is. This kind of logic would apply to the planet itself which is why its the best possible planet in the solar system despite the plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and I guess it applies to the human body too id rather be a rational human being that dies of cancer at age 50 than a snail
Additionally man COULD actually BE perfect but free will leads him astray from the path of god and thus committing evil.
Any other complaints about god apart from him not existing ?
I think this question ties up to the problem of evil and why it exists for if god is indeed perfect (which Im not sure he is) then why is there imperfection in the world such as evil for example.
Well Im gonna try to answer this. Firstly a perfect being does not imply that the creatures he creates such as animals and men and plants are as perfect as he is. This kind of logic would apply to the planet itself which is why its the best possible planet in the solar system despite the plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and I guess it applies to the human body too id rather be a rational human being that dies of cancer at age 50 than a snail
Additionally man COULD actually BE perfect but free will leads him astray from the path of god and thus committing evil.
Any other complaints about god apart from him not existing ?
Comments (58)
Stunning. How do you define "perfect"? Because definitions and concepts go a priori to becoming a good citizen afterwards. I wholeheartedly want to know it, because I am realising that I am approaching evil, instead of celibacy. According to your basis, free will always pushes us to commit sins. Only in a predetermined life would we all be perfect then?
[quote=dictionary] having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be[/quote]
My definition is something that is flawless
Quoting javi2541997
No free will also allows us to perform good deeds too, it's wisdom and emotional intelligence that allows one to do the right thing rather than being an evil bastard, I'm not necessarily saying free will is bad.
I'm saying bad choices are bad and that not being able to tell the difference is ignorance rather than bad. If something evil is performed deliberately and the person performing knows it's a bad thing to do then there is not contravention of free will taking place, it's the privilege of having free will
Quoting Tom Storm
Good question there questioning the creators intent and laws of the jungle. He could easily make paradise, where all that exist is sheep eating grass. That would defeat the purpose of diversity and life itself, I think he just wanted to create knowing perfection would be boring so he chose imperfection instead, I don't really know.
I generally hold the view that if there is a god they are either somewhat powerless or a cunt. But who are we to use puny human logic on such complex matters? :wink: The idea that god would be happy to factor in intense suffering as an inherent attribute of their creation (in order to prevent boredom) sounds sociopathic.
Sounds like the Old Testament to me, yes I think the motives of such a being are hard to fathom.
What is the purpose of God anyway? cant he just chill out for a bit and give us humans a break ? Nope some idiot wants to start a war because he wants the old times back or more land or whatever reason wars happen for, its always got the human element there, again the privilege of free will but if they followed one of the commandments though shalt not kill then the world would be a slightly happier place no ? Tigers cant read so you carry on boys
The bible is full of contradictions I have to admit but as far as morality goes its got some good stuff.
Prey-predator dynamics are part of nature and what makes it wonderful imo, yes in a sense its cruel and as an ardent theist I must take the good with the bad, what would the cheetah eat without the gazelle which in turn eats vegetation. Its a vicious cycle in a sense and Id rather be a cheetah but such is nature, and empathy is not just a human attribute Im sure some animals are capable of it too.
You also have to realise that neither the cheetah nor the gazelle had a choice that they were born as such and that the cheetah without the prey would die without it.
I understand your point, but how can we distinguish between good and bad actions? Whatever is ethical for me and you, it could be unethical for others, and so on. If I didn't understand you wrong, I think you believe that most of our decisions depend on the blurred line of "good and evil".
Nonetheless, it is obvious that sometimes we have to make bad decisions, whether we want to or not. There is not an established principle that always making "good" decisions will lead you to a happy ending. These concepts, "goo"d and "bad", are free interpreted to people...
NB: Also, most living creatures are microbial parasites ((or symbionts), not "predators". The living were allegedly "created" to consume the living cannibalesque coprophagy to involuntarily afflict pain or injury on one another. "Creation" (aka "the best of all possible worlds") is a cosmic abattoir.
I wouldnt go that far, suffering is a product of creation and though God itself could indeed be perfect his creation isnt due to the natural world unfolding in the way it does. Worship is a personal choice.
:roll:
Not saying evil is good, I am however saying evil is in one sense inevitable because were not perfect yet. Were we able to eradicate disease and wars or other types of misfortune ourselves then wed be close to it perhaps God likes to delegate the nitty gritty to us
@180 Proof does this angle help ?
I guess I fall into the apologetic category by your and my admissions, thats not too bad Im in good company.
Oh and dont forget that life can be beautiful too, depends how you see it always a glass half full kinda guy. The happy moments should be equally appreciated with the sad ones :)
Saying that evil is inevitable is equivalent to say that it is good. Inevitable means that our world is the best possible, so, the kind of good we can afford is the one we have in this world, so, it is the maximum good we can have in this world. This means that any evil we have in this world is just part of the general maximum good we can have in this world. Evil is part of good. Evil is good.
Moreover, from a historical point of view, saying that evil is inevitable prepares a good ground for another holocaust.
Moreover: how do you know that evil is inevitable?
I raised this point in another thread. If g/G is omnipotent, either 1) g/G is a sociopath or 2) g/G is beyond good and evil.
1) This would be that g/G has some sort of agenda where he needs evil to happen to see an outcome. But if he was omnipotent, surely he could have picked a range of choices that had no evils in it.
2) This would be that g/G is on a level of ethics whereby "good" and "evil" does not apply to him. He's working at a "higher level". But this doesn't get around the fact that many/all of his creatures did/do/will suffer and he is aware of it. How does ethics at a "higher level" justify suffering at the "lower level", when it is perceived as suffering at this lower level? Surely an omnicient g/G would know this.
Either way, these two scenarios are quite problematic. 2 is especially problematic in that it may be the case that humans are default being used for a "greater plan", but nullifying the "don't use people as a means to an ends". If there is no "greater plan", then there is still the mystery of why "suffering" and "evil" exist in and of itself.
Also, with 2, it is oddly anthropomorphic to assume that g/G has started a game (the universe/multiverse) so that he could watch something play out. If he is truly "beyond all ethical values of comprehension", even this pedestrian interest in watching a game play out, is ridiculously anthropomorphic.
Creation is not a unity. All created things lack something. Creation is continuous, a process of becoming. We might ask: "if one creates a perfect thing, but it is not perfected until the process of creation is finished, is the thing thus imperfect?" "Is perfecting necessarily imperfect?"
Wouldn't it be better still if the perfect became perfect instantaneously? But perhaps the process of the imperfect being brought to perfection is itself better than such a timeless perfection?
Jacob Boheme's insight was that such a unity cannot achieve certain things that divided being can. Self-knowledge is impossible for a unity because there is no differentiation between it and anything else. Just one thing existing becomes the same as nothing existing, it's like the information held in an infinite series of just 1s or just 0s.
Eckhart says something to the effect of "the Father was born when I was born," which in context is the argument that God becomes what God is through creation. The Father is only the Father when he begets the Son. Such a creation requires differentiation, which in turn requires the lack of perfection implied by separateness.
Saint Augustine saw evil simply as a lack of good, an absence rather than its own substance. A thing is better, more perfect, when it more fully embodies its essence. But even for him, there are different gradations of perfection between essences. Thus, a perfect flower is still less perfect than God. I think it is this second type of perfection we need to think about here. Creation itself implies "not God," which implies "less perfect." But in this view, it is still true that God is not the source of any evil, but rather "not-God," lack of God.
Towards this view, in the Biblical narrative creation itself seems to rebel from the very beginning. God calls on the Earth to "grass grass," and instead it "puts forth grass," causing the ancient Rabbis to note that the Earth was first in rebellion. The deeper meaning here might be that the speaking of existence into being through God's Word is necessarily a division of things that implies gradations of perfection.
In any event, I don't think evil, unpleasant, bad, and painful are necessarily synonyms. People can find good in things that are "unpleasant," and we see this is ascetics all the time. So there is an argument to be made that "evil" only stems from the emergence of self-reflective freedom. Bad emerges relevant to some sort of subjectivity. If everything is good, without the possibility of bad, then good becomes contentless. It is a label applied equally to all things. Thus, the creation of good implies the bad.
It's worth noting that while God deems some things good as he creates them, only the holistic unity is deemed "very good," or "absolutely good."
IMO, the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenificent, omniscient God begets paradoxes. But as Niels Bohr once said "the opposite of a truth is a falsity, but the opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth."
I believe Schopenhauer drew inspiration from Boheme. @Wayfarer can perhaps confirm that with the book he is reading on Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer was adamant that his metaphysical Will was unitary but individuated (Will and Representation), as the flipside is "objectified Will" and "individuated". However, he was careful to emphasize his system was atheistic. That is to say, there was no creator or logos or purpose for it. It just "is". However, he did not give it a positive spin, but rather thought of it as tragic as the Will-individuated is full of suffering and dissatisfaction. That seems to offer a solution around the problems I brought up above for someone planning suffering and dissatisfaction to be in the system.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
The creation is still the output of a creator. See my problems above again.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Which is why Schopenhauer seems relevant here again. "Good" in this metaphysical sense of "unity" (no individuation, binaries, etc.) would be some sort of Nirvana-like state, not "good" in the hedonic sense. However, to posit an alternative, I could say that there could have been a possible world where everyone was hedonically happy, and never suffered and knew it by way of some self-aware feeling that they felt good. Or alternatively again, there could have been a possible world where people could change the degree of hardship and change it back so that they had the opportunity for less optimal conditions to "overcome" something, but if this was too much, they could switch back, etc. If this is preposterous, it is because yeah, it doesn't exist. It's a "utopia". But, this is not our reality. Rather, our reality has suffering, dissatisfaction, and evil as either hedonically true (contingent for each person's experience) or metaphysically true (it's built in, in some Schopenhauerian sense of "suffering"). Either way, it doesn't lead to the "best possible world". And thus I bring you back to the problems I brought up.
Quoting schopenhauer1
R. Scott Bakker has a good short story he published in some philosophy journal about accomplishing this in the near future through neural implants. The idea is that you can just tweak your pleasure, mirth, contentment, aggression, etc. upwards, on demand using a neurally controlled app.
The rub is in how one's ability to control how they feel, almost regardless of circumstances interacts with how they promote, or destroy other's freedom. There is the distinction between "learning to desire that which is good," and the second order volition aspect of "being able to desire what you want to desire." But these two only become mutually reinforcing in a social context of we "desire to want the good," and can make those desires effective.
IDK, that's like, if roads are good, saying that the road pavers not-build roads all the places there aren't roads and that this is a bad act. Or if numbers are good, and God only emanates the natural numbers, then God is somehow acting by not emanating the reals.
Granted, this makes more sense in a Neoplatonic vision of emanation cosmology. Plantinga has a pretty good proof on the idea that if there is an infinite number of possible worlds, such that for any world there will always be an infinite number of worlds that are worse and better than that world, it doesn't follow that any creation is act of creation is thus a contradiction of goodness. I personally have never found that sort of religious philosophy particularly interesting, so I forget the details, but I recall it being convincing.
Even if utopia was possible where nothing bad happened and only good then how would badness be known if all that was known and happened was good ?
In a world where no bad or evil acts happened then that world would not have the world evil in their dictionary hence a metaphysical argument has to be provided regarding the issue of evil which @Count Timothy von Icarus has given @schopenhauer1
So, clearly the utopia doesn't exists in this world; manufacture whatever scenario you want to make it a utopia- what you are reiterating is simply that this world isn't coming close to a utopia anytime soon, or perhaps can never reach thus, even in possibility (though perhaps in theory). That is to say, whatever the case in the future (which looks bleak regarding utopia), utopia was not created as we speak. All the suffering leading to utopia then must be justified in the light of the people being "used" as pawns to reach the supposedly good terminus.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't understand your argument, so I won't answer. You'd have to clarify. You said:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yeah, so the "not-god" part (the relevant part for us because it's the part that's um, "not perfect" and thus I guess is "not good") is still something an omnipotent g/G brought about, so I don't think your answer fits though I see you are trying there.
The issue is that once free will is granted to human beings some of them abuse it by committing horrific or evil acts.
But its also this very capacity that allows one to do good too such as helping mankind make life easier for each other and improving their overall condition by granting them the volition to do so otherwise we would simply be well to do puppets on a string only doing good because we have no choice.
So its precisely this choice good or bad that makes the world interesting think of the many scientific discoveries that can be used for good and for bad.
IIRC, this idea (re: Bakker's Neuropath) goes back about two decades earlier (at least) to George Alec Effinger's notion of cybernetic augments (re: "daddies" & "moddies") in When Gravity Fails and Iain M. Bank's genengineered "drug glands" in his early Culture novels Consider Phlebas and The Player of Games. Decades earlier, adjusting oneself to suit or despite circumstances biochemically / physiologically also is explored, though differently, in both Ursula Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness (re: "changing sex back and forth") and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (re: "soma drug"). I think the "neuro app", however, is the most likely version of this idea to manifest as feasible tech. :nerd:
Then his power is limited. Or he is not the kind of being we usually take him to be: all good, all powerful, etc.
Or we could have the wrong ethics - his are far beyond the ethics we understand.
Or he just doesn't care.
I think the "evil as absence" theory works if your starting point is Neoplatonic emanation because the lower hypostases, of which the physical world is the lowest, have no causal powers. But I agree that it is unsatisfying in the more compelling metaphysical contexts we have access to day. That is, I think Augustine's explanation is interesting because it is consistent, but it isn't compelling.
Personally, I tend try to think of it in terms of emergence. God, or if you are an atheist, some event sets forth the "rules" through which the universe evolves (such rules need not be causal players, just descriptions of how nature evolved). God, or the event, determined the initial conditions for evolution. But then, at some point, intentionality emerges because, well, here we are. Good and evil don't seem like coherent concepts unless intentionality and subjectivity exist, so they emerge within intentionality.
We can always tie everything back to ultimate causes, and in this way we can say "God authors evil," or "the universe fundementally produces evil." But it's in the immanent unfolding that everything interesting happens and that the very intentionality that defines evil exists.
:up: ...but fairly terrifying in Scott's hands lol.
I suppose it's a gradation though. We already accomplish some of this when we grab a coffee to improve our focus. If we ever get very specific functioning apps, I imagine we will look back at the application of system-wide medicines, with their huge side effects, to deal with mental illness on par with using leeches and bleeding people back in medieval medicine.
If you do not believe in God then suffering just comes from the world right? :smile:
Life is very precious, some people can find comfort in God's love because God knows what is best for us.
I mean, now we are just word-parsing but "evil" can mean many things. Some common ideas:
1) Evil is a judgement about certain acts or intentions people do or have that either result in someone else's misery or negative experience. To act with malice intent or disregard for suffering.
2) Evil is any negative experience whether man-made or non-manmade (accidents, natural disasters, and someone's negative actions towards others).
3) Evil is some sort of metaphysical "stain" on one's being (this is very much a Christian/Augustinian/Pauline conception) by simply being born a human whose nature is sinful or some such.
So there are a lot "family resemblances" here. The way your OP set it out, it seemed all 3 of these could be on the table. Either way, since the OP mentions a God, I was assuming that was necessary. I still think you have not fully addressed these ideas I had from previous post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/838906
By virtue of what are natural disasters bad? The storms of Jupiter, the ongoing nuclear explosions of the Sun, we don't see as disasters. If they were to occur in Earth, they would be disasters.
It seems that in an important way, there is a "semiotic cut," that starts with life. Things can be good or bad for a lifeform, it can experience harm. But it doesn't make sense to say the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium is good or bad in relevance to the atoms themselves.
"Good and bad," emerge from the process of cosmic evolution with lifeforms. Before intentionality, nothing could experience good or bad and nothing could "do evil." If the universe has a purpose, there is an absolute unity of purpose before life forms. As life develops, that unity dissolves. So, if you assume a divine unity, such a progression always results in a falling away from unity, as intentional beings by definition have their own purposes.
And I don't see how it could be metaphysically possible for it to be otherwise. If there is multiple subjects, there is necessarily the [I]possibility[/I] of disunity in judgement. They might be causally constrained from disunity, but such constraint would entail that they aren't free. If there is freedom, it seems disunity is bound to follow. There is only one way for all subjects to agree on the good; there are many ways for them to disagree. In a world where there are "free beings," and "yet it is only ever possible for them to have goals and feelings that harmonize," how are they free?
But I think the framing of God in terms of "omni " superlatives is itself contradictory. An omnipotent being can never act lest it limit itself, but then it is not free to act, etc.
Why must it fall away from unity/good? It is possible to evolve towards the good. Not all intention is against the good.
I consider revelation to be contrived fiction, so we're not going to find any common ground. Thanks.
The logic of theology that I'm aware of tends to be dialetheistic, allowing for "true contradictions," and denying proof by contradiction in some cases. I think this is where a lot of philosophy of religion goes off the rails. It tries to apply systems of inquiry that violate core conceptions of the traditions they want to explore.
To be sure, there is a religious tradition, starting more with the Enlightenment, that tries to use a more classical sort of system to analyze God. You see this with folks like Alvin Plantinga, who would be a great person to read on for a classical, bivalent logic based analysis of this sort of thing. But such logic and methodology seems totally alien to the religious thinking of Saint Denis, Saint Bonaventure, Eckhart, Boheme, Merton, etc.
There, you often see paradoxes set atop each other as a mode of description of the divine essence, or even the argument that all description and analysis ultimately causes us to lose sight of God. I don't think the traditions are necessarily commensurate and more religious people seem to read and agree with Merton or Eckhart, or their spiritual descendents, then your Plantingas.
What creates suffering if god created the world ? [/quote]
If we assume God created everything then we must assume this includes suffering. If He hadn't created anything then there wouldn't be any.suffering. I find it an odd question. .
I liked your post as it raises interesting issues, but do do agree. I'd be interested to know why you believe Eckhart's view requires that we abandon ordinary logic.The dialethists claim this but their arguments don't withstand analysis.
It would be because the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought that it cannot be conceived and must be described in partial and contradictory ways, but these would not be true descriptions, just the best we can do. For Eckhart the truth would lie beyond the possibility of contradictions or, as De Cusa puts it, 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories'. Thus beyond all contradictions. This view requires no modification of ordinary logic, just the recognition that bivalent logic cannot describe the unity of the Ultimate. The Buddhist philosopher-monk Nagarjuna explains this in his doctrine of 'Two Truths', and Eckhart endorses the same world-view.
Just defending Eckhart. .
.
. .
. .
Potentially, yes one could look at suffering that way. Once certain basic needs are met then we as human beings can live in happiness rather than misery.
The issue with having a nervous system is the experience of physical pain but the upside is the experience of pleasure too.
I also think a life without suffering would have no meaning as even pleasurable or happy experiences would become mundane.
Suffering is a necessary precondition to appreciating the good life so I dont see the problem or issue if there is some of it in the world as theyre challenges to be overcome and make one stronger, better and fitter in the long run as opposed to only having lived an easy life.
Quoting FrancisRay
Well its an interesting question to me because god is meant to be all good and perfect which implies no need for suffering or pain yet here we are. I can catch a bad cold that pains me so where did these imperfections that cause pain come from if god is perfect? I would answer to appreciate our good health in good times.
But what if in extremes one was in chronic pain ? How would we answer this question of a god that loves his children ? This one I cannot fully answer but it would be through the innovation of brilliant scientists who would find a cure to such ailments, in short a miracle.
Quoting Manuel
Perhaps his ethics could be neatly be summed up by no pain no gain. I think he knows better than us, imagine a society of above average looking millionaires, the concept of beauty would no longer have any meaning here and who would do the grunt work of say picking up the rubbish? So everything has to be balanced by different classes of citizens some who are not so well off to some who are perhaps thats his logic. Strikes me of the master/slave but can you think of a better way society can be organised? Communism ?
I think you have it exactly right, my phrasing might have been incautious. God is beyond the analysis offered of on terms of "God as omni-x." My point was merely that these traditions embrace paraconsistent descriptions as better, if still flawed ways of conceiving of that which is beyond all description.
It's an anachronism to say they were actually paraconsistent, since multivalued logics, etc. are fairly recent. These are just modern terms that I think better fit the spirit of what they lay out. I do wonder what these guys would have thought of such systems, because they had brilliant minds and a knack for illustrating profound truths with contradictions. Hegel too.
I am not aware of theologians doing much with these, although I haven't looked very hard. Thomism still seems very strong in Catholic philosophy programs.
I would say that the need for a paraconsistent;logic that you speak of is a misperception.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
They're not paraconsistent descriptions, albeit they seem contradictory. They are a rejection of all extreme views and descriptions requiring no modification of ordinary logic. .
There are two crucial issues here. First, those who describe the Ultimate in seemingly contradictory terms do not say this is God. Eckhart and Plotinus, for instance, deny that this is God. To think of The One as God, says Plotinus, is to think of it 'too meanly'.
Second, the contradictory language associated with the nondualism of Eckhart and Plotinus strictly obeys the rules of logic. When Heraclitus states 'We both are and are-not' he is not abandoning logic, but saying that there is a sense in which we are and a sense in which we are not. As a consequence, it would be unrigorous to state 'we are' or 'we are not'. These are extreme positions and all such positions are rejected by nondualism.
The point would be that the propositions 'we are ' and we are not' would not form a legitimate contradictory pair, since it would not be the case that one is true and one is false. Thus to reject both requires no modification to dialectical logic. .
Lao Tzu tells us 'true words seem paradoxical', not that they actually are. I suspect that this point about logic is vital for an understanding of Eckhart and the mystics, since otherwise it will seem that they speak in riddles and have no respect for the laws of dialectical logic.
If there is a sense in which we are and a sense in which we are not then you can simply clarify those senses in a bivalent way by breaking the statement down into atomic propositions.
Of course, it is not a violation of logic to say that a natural language sentence appears contradictory, but actually isn't.
And I think this is what is meant in some statements that might seem contradictory or heretical at first glance. Like Eckhart's claim that he preexisted God. This is a claim about the potentialities within God, including humans, pre-existing creation, versus the human conception of God as God only existing temporally. No contradiction there.
But Saint Denis's claims about a light that is darkness doesn't yield to the same sort of breakdown.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rules of logic," here. There are many logical systems. Multivalued logic is not any less rigorous or less logic. Second, I don't know what you mean by "nondualism" here. Generally the term refers to ontological dualism, in which case, yes, Plotinus and Plato are absolutely dualists in key respects. But it seems like you might be talking more about rejecting bivalence?
You can, yes, and then both statements would be untrue.
Of course not. But most people would say that the statement 'We are and are-not; is a contradiction and find it difficult to see how it can not be one. .
Eckhart is saying that God is a concept and that consciousness and ultimate reality is prior to concepts. He is saying that God is not fundamental, thus that monotheism is wrong. He is merely agreeing with the pagan philosophers he so admired, who say that God is a misunderstanding. So yes, no contradictions are implied.
I think you;ll find ti does, but I don't know Dennis so don't know the quote or the context. If it is a contradiction in the way that he meant it then he is not thinking clearly, but I expect he;s endorsing the same view I'm defending. .
I was speaking of the rules for the dialectic as proscribed by Aristotle. This is necessarily bivalent, and because of this must be transcended for nondualism. Nothing wrong with the rules though. It's just that reality would not be bivalent. It would be 'advaita or 'not-two', undivided, undifferentiated and best described as a unity, or as Plotinus describes it - a one without a second. ,
The idea that Plotinus was a dualist is one I've never encountered previously. To see that he is not would require a study of nondualism. If you don't know what this word means then Plotinus and the entire literature of of mysticism will be incomprehensible.
You clearly know your stuff theologically, but I feel you're missing out on the view that opens up when one lets go of monotheism. The idea of God confuses the issues since it is so emotive and vague. Plotinus and Eckhart ask us to look beyond this idea.
I suspect even Aquinas would have agreed since he endorses the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, and nothing could be simpler that the unity or 'One' that serves as the Ultimate for the Perennial philosophy.. .
Thanks for an interesting discussion. . . .
What do you mean "apart from him not existing"?
If he doesn't exist, how can there be any complaint about him, i.e. about something that doesn't exist? :smile:
Except if the complaint is about his non-existence. That is, that we are alone, without anyone to protect and guide us. :smile:
:up:
Gotcha, I get how you mean nondualism now, in the sense that Shankara's advaita is nondualist, right. That makes perfect sense to me.
Although, I would disagree that Plotinus, Porphery, Proclus, etc., the Neoplatonists, advance a similar sort of non-dualism in that sense. For Shankara, Maya is ultimately illusion, the base reality is Brahman. But for the Neoplatonists the Plotinian hypostases seem to be a distinct reality, albeit one that [I]can[/I] be overcome. The One actually emanates, where as the play of Brahma in Maya seems to be illusory in Shankara.
At least that's how I've normally seen them read, but I can see how they could be read in non-dualist ways as well because of the references to "illusion." At least in Porphery or early Augustine, the illusion seems to harden more, because of the idea of downward causality where the higher, Psyche, Nous, effects the lower material realm, but not vice versa (I forget if that is as explicit in Plotinius himself.)
And this is generally what is meant by "ontological dualism," the idea there is another level of reality that is distinct from the material world of sensation. E.g., the realm of Platonic forms.
Interestingly, and I'll see if I can find an example, modern scholars do accuse Shankara or falling into the excluded middle and violating bivalence. I'm not familiar enough with Shankara to really weigh these appropriately, but it's interesting in that it's another example where religion seems to clash with analytical techniques that, IMO, might be being misapplied.
Maybe, that's sort of the perennialist take on Eckhart. But the man maintained throughout his life that his doctrine was in keeping with Catholic orthodoxy, granted we could imagine this was partly due to social pressure and threats.
Personally, I can't buy it. The man's work is too covered in scriptural references, practical references to living in the type of Christ, love as loving Christ in others, etc. I'm by no means an expert on his vast corpus, and I originally got into Eckhart reading the perennialist interpretations, Eckhart as a pantheist, but Bill Harmless and others make a pretty convincing case for a more orthodox Eckhart based on his correspondence and practical advice.
But we can't know for sure, right? That's what always makes history interesting. Maybe this was just cover for him to explore unorthodox ideas.
I like the orthodox reading in part though because it shows the vast space of conceptual possibilities that exist within orthodoxy, even if they are rarely explored. We tend to think, "if most x state y, then x is what is consistent with y," but I find it neat how Eckhart, Rumi, etc. can show us, "hey look, there is this whole set of other spaces that don't conflict with the boundaries of Christian/Muslim orthodoxy, and yet are conceptually very different."
Theology is cool in that way, a bit freer than philosophy is some ways.
Modern scholars often make this accusation. I would argue that that they are misunderstanding bivalence and abusing Aristotle;s logic. Nondualism requires no changes to the rules but only their stricter than usual application. This can be demonstrated and is not a matter of opinion. Graham Priest accuses Buddhism of being full of contradictions, and I cannot imagine a more profound and unnecessary misunderstanding. It seems utterly perverse. , .
It seems mostly to be bang in line with the orthodoxy, but clearly he restricted what he said for the reasons you mention. In mysticism Jesus us usually regarded as m authentic teacher who was misunderstood by the later church. For instance, in Taoism Christ is the True Man who resides within each of us.
I feel pantheism is a confusing red herring so won't go there. It seems inevitable that people who do not understand nondualism are bound to misread Eckhart, Jesus and all others who teach the same doctrine. I had to study Buddhism in order to make sense of Christianity and I've heard many others say the same. . . . .
I think we can know for sure. He writes with great care and clarity.
Hmm. I rather think the limitations of theology are made clear in the name. Philosophy has to start with no assumptions about God. I'd recommend replacing theology with metaphysics and starting with a clean slate. Still, if you're talking about what passes for philosophy in our universities then I'd probably agree. . .
To me the whole issue is summed up in Lao Tzu's comment, 'True words seem paradoxical'. This would only be the case if the advaita doctrine is true, so his brief words reward a lot of study. .
It appears you have taken the quote out of context. If you read my opening post again you will find that the point Im making is that if god exists who is perfect why is there suffering in the world. This is a common complaint or objection to the existence or non existence of a perfect, benevolent God.
I don't know if I was out of context, but you are certainly out of response time! :smile:
True, but thats like saying differentiation between say land and water. Water can give you pleasure if youre by the beach enjoying a nice swim to cool down, however a tsunami could wreck havoc and be a cause of suffering. So differentiation as cause of suffering depends on context.
Suffering is also relative for example some people have plastic surgery because theyre insecure or unhappy about their looks, but in a world without differentiation in terms of attractiveness this cause of unhappiness would be eliminated.
So I guess it comes down to equality if were born equal and remained equal in all aspects the general level of suffering would be fairly low.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I think what might be missing in this discussion is the ethical or moral dimension of religious philosophy and its ultimately existential nature. One of the Schopenhauer quotes that is relevant:
[quote=quoted in Schopenhauer's Compass, Urs App, p1]In order to always have a secure compass in hand so as to find one's way in life, and to see life always in the correct light without going astray, nothing is more suitable than getting used to seeing the world as something like a penal colony. This view finds its...justification not only in my philosophy, but also in the wisdom of all times, namely, in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Empedocles, Pythagoras [...] Even in genuine and correctly understood Christianity, our existence is regarded as the result of a liability or a misstep. ... We will thus always keep our position in mind and regard every human, first and foremost, as a being that exists only on account of sinfulness, and who is life is an expiation of the offence committed through birth. Exactly this constitutes what Christianity calls the sinful nature of man.[/quote]
The Eastern religions designate this state or condition as 'avidya' or ignorance, rather than 'original sin', which has a more cognitive connotation (i.e. corruption of the intellect) than sin (corruption of the will).
In either case, I think the essential implication is that existence as we understand it is inherently prone to suffering. The human condition is characterised in the early Buddhist texts as being one of inherent suffering due to being separated from what one loves, united with what one doesn't love, and subject to old age, illness and death, the implication being that the only real escape from suffering it to escape altogether from re-birth in sa?s?ra (although this became modified in Mah?y?na Buddhism with the idea that the Bodhisattva can take voluntary birth 'for the welfare of all sentient beings', which actually dovetails rather well with Christian theology.)
Whereas in today's culture, physical satisfaction, safety, health, enjoyment, and so on, are regarded as the only real goods, so it is unnacceptable to this outlook that God doesn't just facilitate that. He doesn't conform to our ideas of what constitutes 'the good life'. (This is what I describe as the 'hotel manager theodicy' - 'who's responsible for all this!?!' I believe C S Lewis has an essay on that, God in the Dock (although I haven't read it) - but the gist is, in previous times, man was the accused, standing in the dock and being judged by God. However, in the modern era, this has reversed, and God is the one being judged by human standards.)
So the upshot is, according at least to ol' time religion, there is no permanent peace and security to be found 'in this vale of tears', all we can do is improve physical well-being and political security and maximize comfort. Against that background, 'religion' generally makes no sense. As we see.