value of metaphysics

[Golyadkin]

i guess i have to apologise, i was a bit agitated when i chose to write that post, therefore most of what i said was quite narrow minded.
But in response to lilithu, i dont think you can believe in God and the Absurd, as there opposites really; Being and non-Being. One suggests a rather limited world with man at the head, and a moral order of the universe that is God's Will, the other a parasitical type of man relative to the rest of the animal kingdom, in a tiny world that is of no value to the universe; with no moral order of the universe. To believe in god is to impose a fundamental order on 'chaos' and esteem it with absolute 'blind faith', rather than the existential approach of imposing a 'modest' order if you see what i mean.

 

[lilithu]

But in response to lilithu, i dont think you can believe in God and the Absurd, as there opposites really; Being and non-Being. One suggests a rather limited world with man at the head, and a moral order of the universe that is God's Will, the other a parasitical type of man relative to the rest of the animal kingdom, in a tiny world that is of no value to the universe; with no moral order of the universe. To believe in god is to impose a fundamental order on 'chaos' and esteem it with absolute 'blind faith', rather than the existential approach of imposing a 'modest' order if you see what i mean.

I don't see why I can't believe in Being and non-Being simultaneously. In fact, I consider it crucial that I do. If you think that you must choose one or the other, it is your choice to think so, but not a given fact. This is the basis for the criticism against Kiergekaard, is it not? That he didn't choose one or the other. And because other people cannot comprehend that, they see it ultimately as a failing on his part, regardless of whatever respect they have for him. I see his acceptance of paradox as a triumph and the genesis for all his great thought.

As for the amount of order in the universe, which seems to be your primary criterion for Absurdity, as long as there is free will there can't be much order. The God that you describe seems to suggest omniscience/omnipotence. I suggest that as long as there is free will then it is impossible for God to be omniscient/omnipotent in actuality. As I said in my last post, whatever meaning (or order if you prefer) God may intend, it is still up to each person to appropriate that meaning for him/herself. As long as we have free will one can always choose a different meaning, and there cannot be more than modest order. Even Abraham could have refused. That's the crux of the story. If it had been impossible for Abraham to refuse, there would be nothing to admire. That's how Kierkegaard understood that even with God there is still the Absurd.

 

[Golyadkin]

I don't see why I can't believe in Being and non-Being simultaneously. In fact, I consider it crucial that I do. If you think that you must choose one or the other, it is your choice to think so, but not a given fact. This is the basis for the criticism against Kiergekaard, is it not? That he didn't choose one or the other. And because other people cannot comprehend that, they see it ultimately as a failing on his part, regardless of whatever respect they have for him. I see his acceptance of paradox as a triumph and the genesis for all his great thought.

You kow, just because you thinks somethings so, doesnt make it so; it is your choice to think that Being and non-Being can co-exist together, doesnt make it fact, its your oppionion; as justified to you as mine is to me. Its not a matter of "chooseing" in my mind, its what there is and what there isnt. If somethings the way it is, then its that way for me wether i "like" it or not, just because id prefer it another way doesnt mean il close my eyes to the evidence.
As for your saying "Just because other people cannot comprehend that, they see it ultimately as a failing on his part.." What value can a statement like that have? are you suggesting we should have blindfaith in his deciding to beleive in God, despite the fact that we cant comprehend it? Do you believe everything you cant comprehend(perhaps because their attractive)? i dont, doesnt me i dismiss them though, otherwise you dont grow, but i dont suddenly aquire blindfaith to override my questioning.

 

[Golyadkin]

i wont even bother going into the doctrine of free will with you, that seems to be so central to your understanding of existance

 

[michel]

i wont even bother going into the doctrine of free will with you, that seems to be so central to your understanding of existance

That's what is so special about this forum. There is nothing wrong with us believing in different things, and accepting it. As it happens, I agree with Lilithu, but it might just have been you.

 

[lilithu]

You kow, just because you thinks somethings so, doesnt make it so; it is your choice to think that Being and non-Being can co-exist together, doesnt make it fact, its your oppionion; as justified to you as mine is to me. Its not a matter of "chooseing" in my mind, its what there is and what there isnt. If somethings the way it is, then its that way for me wether i "like" it or not, just because id prefer it another way doesnt mean il close my eyes to the evidence.
As for your saying "Just because other people cannot comprehend that, they see it ultimately as a failing on his part." What value can a statement like that have? are you suggesting we should have blindfaith in his deciding to beleive in God, despite the fact that we cant comprehend it?

No, I'm saying the exact same thing that you say above. Just because you think it's only one way doesn't make it so. And in the end it's just your opinion that Kierkegaard failed, as justified to you as his to his and mine to mine.

i wont even bother going into the doctrine of free will with you, that seems to be so central to your understanding of existance

Excuse me but how can you be an existentialist if you don't believe in free will? The entire philosophy is built upon the freedom to choose.

 

[raw_thought]

One cannot escape metaphysics. The rejection of metaphysics is a metaphysical belief system.
Similarly, the rejection of philosophy ( the search for an ultimate explanation) is a philosophical system
Pragmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ironically, Nietzsche's philosophy is VERY metaphysical ( will to power etc).