I bet most psychologists would agree that ideas are processes in the brain.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Idea or Reality
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
I bet most psychologists would agree that ideas are processes in the brain.
You must. But if by "in" you refer to matter, then we have diverged from our discussion of ideas.
I disagree. Ideas are physical processes that happen in the brain. They are patterns of neural activity.
As is the perceptable chair.
That's why the idea of a chair cannot differ from the chair it is the idea of.
Your reasoning doesn't support your conclusion. I say, based on your reasoning, it can differ: It's not the same chair. At best it's an identical representation.
The representation is called "idea."
And it's not the same thing. It might be entirely equivalent. But it's not the same.
What are "traditional deities?" At any rate, the gods are essentially mythopoetic personifications of various aspects of reality or of various principles. So in essence, saying you do not believe in Athene is like saying you do not believe in fighting for just causes, that you do not believe in wisdom and good counsel, and that you do not believe in defending your nation from aggressors. It gets even weirder for other gods, where the "I don't believe in this" translates to things like "I don't believe the sun exists" or even "I don't believe in the planet."
Don't worry about it; it's just a map. The nuances of how I tend to map the territory I call "reality" isn't really important to anyone other than myself. And it changes all the time anyway depending on what is efficient for a given purpose. In this particular context, I was referencing it to indicate parts of reality that are often considered categorically different than other parts (hence that they can be conceptualized as distinct planes/dimensions). But like I said, it's all map of territory and you can draw the map however you want. If you know of no such thing, it would make no sense for you to draw or use such a map.
What are "traditional deities?" At any rate, the gods are essentially mythopoetic personifications of various aspects of reality or of various principles. So in essence, saying you do not believe in Athene is like saying you do not believe in fighting for just causes, that you do not believe in wisdom and good counsel, and that you do not believe in defending your nation from aggressors. It gets even weirder for other gods, where the "I don't believe in this" translates to things like "I don't believe the sun exists" or even "I don't believe in the planet."
Yes, Athena, Zeus, Horus, etc are *myths* used by certain cultures to attempt to understand the universe around them. But personifying an idea doesn't mean there is a person there. While I can believe in fighting for just causes, that is NOTHING like believing in Athena. The same goes for the other deities.
In fact, this way of thinking is very, very strange to me. Mythical constructs are NOT reality. And that is the whole point.
While i agree with some reservations(i am hesitant to make absolute statements), there is this aspect too:
A mental construct can have a real, tangible, physical result. It can be equivalent to reality.
/E: Result = effect.
They are the same to many polytheists. I think the issue is you're assuming a mythological literalist approach. I'm not sure why you would do that, particularly when it seems rather apparent that this was not the intention of these stories.
PositiveThinking09
Member
Nothing was expanding eternally, and when it reached outside the bounds of everything beyond existence; it collided with something. When that echo came back to its center of expansion it created an explosion that INFINITELY explodes and retracts. Over and over
They are the same to many polytheists. I think the issue is you're assuming a mythological literalist approach. I'm not sure why you would do that, particularly when it seems rather apparent that this was not the intention of these stories.
So your claim is that even these cultures didn't think their deities actually existed? That seems an extreme position to take. Now, it is clear that Plato and Aristotle didn't take these mythally, but it is also clear than most before them did (Greek myths here, specifically).
So, I would not say that Sherlock Holmes actually existed. He is a mythical/literary construct that carries certain ideals. But he did not exist.
No, it is not. Not everyone defines existence as narrowly as you seem to be. Regardless, I'm not interested in making "claims," I am making an observation. If one approaches mythos thinking that literalism is all that there is, that is a rather limited perspective which does not reflect how many folks approach their paths.
I don't see truth and myth as compatible. Myths are fiction. As fiction, they can carry the ideas of a culture. But they are not truth.
I would like to see you elevate that statement from "empty unsubstantiated claim" to something a bit better, to serve your own agenda with more efficiency.
stevevw
Member
That's like saying was maths invented or discovered. I tend to think it may be discovered.
so it existed but the discoverer was initially unaware of the mathematics?
so does it have a fixed form, or symbol; such as 1, 2, 3, 4 or is it 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100,
This is something I have thought about quite a bit as a professional mathematician. My best analogy is the game of chess.
Was the game of chess invented or discovered? Well, most people would say invented (and I would agree).
But, once we have the rules of chess, we can present problems: 'how many moves to checkmate?' Are the answers to these questions invented or discovered? And I would say discovered.
My belief is that we invent the rules of mathematics and discover their consequences.