Most powerful philosophy

[Lord_Zeref_Dragneel]

Can u make your own revised ranking lol. Thank you

 

[Lord_Zeref_Dragneel]

Just use the same ones I listed

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Can u make your own revised ranking lol. Thank you

Just use the same ones I listed

No. Just switch EMR(highest interpretation) with Alethic Relativism and watered down Apophatic Theory.

 

[Lord_Zeref_Dragneel]

So.

Absolute Negation >= Absolute Nothing = Apophatic Theology (highest interpretation) > EMR (Highest interpretation) > Alethic Relativism > Apophatic Theology (watered down version. Basically the wiki's standard for Tier 0) > EMR (watered down version or the wiki's interpretation for High 1-A+)?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

So.

Absolute Negation >= Absolute Nothing = Apophatic Theology (highest interpretation) > EMR (Highest interpretation) > Alethic Relativism > Apophatic Theology (watered down version. Basically the wiki's standard for Tier 0) > EMR (watered down version or the wiki's interpretation for High 1-A+)?

Yeah….. I’ll be moving on now.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Still think 'The answer to 'Can [insert powerful being] do X ?' will always be Yes' and it's multitude variants is superior though not going to lie

 

[Livinaa]

Any verse that has Absolute Negation?

If B&W's Endless Journey is closest thing to Absolute Negation, then i might know one, since it's similar to B&W's Endless Journey.

从观想太阳开始无敌

The simplified cosmology goes like this :
Great Void/criterion of known < Infinite Unknown < Source Power < True Infinite Unknown.

And yes, just like in B&W, the MC enters the True Infinite Unknown at the end, and the author stops there for the same reason as B&W's author.

 

[Lord_Zeref_Dragneel]

If B&W's Endless Journey is closest thing to Absolute Negation, then i might know one, since it's similar to B&W's Endless Journey.

从观想太阳开始无敌

The simplified cosmology goes like this :
Great Void/criterion of known < Infinite Unknown < Source Power < True Infinite Unknown.

And yes, just like in B&W, the MC enters the True Infinite Unknown at the end, and the author stops there for the same reason as B&W's author.

So is the "True Infinite Unknown" on the same level as Absolute Negation?

 

[Lord_Zeref_Dragneel]

Also is the Monad and Apophatic Theology related in any way?

 

[Lordhesperus]

Is the negative theology very powerful philosophy? No, not really, and this sounds good in principle, but when you take a closer look, it falls apart. Its full of paradoxical/contradictory terms so it doesn’t exactly make an easy base for a solid philosophy.

The principle of sufficient reason makes more sense, it gives us an easier idea as to how things are as they are.

If you agree that God must be beyond all reasons then it calls into grave doubt God’s power. What is God’s omnipotence worth if there is no logical support for that omnipotence? It just doesn’t sit right. So, when looking at life and the world around us in simpler terms, it just makes sense to think everything has its cause.

 

[Udlmaster]

If you agree that God must be beyond all reasons then it calls into grave doubt God’s power. What is God’s omnipotence worth if there is no logical support for that omnipotence? It just doesn’t sit right. So, when looking at life and the world around us in simpler terms, it just makes sense to think everything has its cause.

Well, being beyond all reason would be beyond all logic.

Many Theologians in the West have argued, God is the foundation of Logic.

Likewise, God being the union of all things and their contradictions, I don't see why any contradiction would matter.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Well, being beyond all reason would be beyond all logic.

Many Theologians in the West have argued, God is the foundation of Logic.

Likewise, God being the union of all things and their contradictions, I don't see why any contradiction would matter.

There's someone's depiction that God is all logical thus contradiction to logic would deter him.

Though, for the most part, God is the ground for all logic and contradiction such an example is Thomas Aquinas' depiction of God.

 

[Udlmaster]

There's someone's depiction that God is all logical thus contradiction to logic would deter him.

I'm aware, but that's not so much a response to his point about illogical omnipotence

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm aware, but that's not so much a response to his point about illogical omnipotence

Yeah, but his points got me dumb founded so I just ignored it because it's easily answerable.

 

[Lordhesperus]

Well, being beyond all reason would be beyond all logic.

Many Theologians in the West have argued, God is the foundation of Logic.

Likewise, God being the union of all things and their contradictions, I don't see why any contradiction would matter.

Eastern and Western philosophy have different views on logic, to say that God is the Foundation of Logic is confusing because we still uses logic to support this claim.

 

[Udlmaster]

Eastern and Western philosophy have different views on logic

I'm very well aware? You are saying this to a Buddhist after all.

To say that God is the Foundation of Logic is confusing because we still uses logic to support this claim.

It's a type of reductionism. For example, God is beyond words and understanding. They are ineffable. Yet, I used words just a moment ago to describe them, but I do not say so to contradict myself, it's used as a bridge to allow you to understand.

Classical logic doesn't apply when discussing the ineffable because how could it? Brahman is beyond all description yet "beyond all description" is a description, but only because we ourselves are limited beings who require such things to discuss them.

 

[Lordhesperus]

I'm very well aware? You are saying this to a Buddhist after all.


It's a type of reductionism. For example, God is beyond words and understanding. They are ineffable. Yet, I used words just a moment ago to describe them, but I do not say so to contradict myself, it's used as a bridge to allow you to understand.

Classical logic doesn't apply when discussing the ineffable because how could it? Brahman is beyond all description yet "beyond all description" is a description, but only because we ourselves are limited beings who require such things to discuss them.

This is confusing because while we say that X cannot be described, but at the same time describe it as indescribable, this leads us to a circular argument, just going back in circles to the same point.

So if something is beyond all description/word/terms, then to say that it is indescribable doesn't really mean anything. We wouldn't have any reason to talk about it or explain it. In other words, we can't use any action like language/speech/thoughts about God, just nothing, to say that it is beyond words.

simply to talk about something that cannot be expressed in words. beyond words, one would try to talk about God – even with words that mean no or not – this works against the idea that God is beyond all words.


totality of Logic is necessary, Without logic we have no support for a claim, including claims about the ineffable nature of X.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

This is confusing because while we say that X cannot be described, but at the same time describe it as indescribable, this leads us to a circular argument, just going back in circles to the same point.

So if something is beyond all description/word/terms, then to say that it is indescribable doesn't really mean anything. We wouldn't have any reason to talk about it or explain it. In other words, we can't use any action like language/speech/thoughts about God, just nothing, to say that it is beyond words.

simply to talk about something that cannot be expressed in words. beyond words, one would try to talk about God – even with words that mean no or not – this works against the idea that God is beyond all words.

You do realize that you saying the argument in circle is self-evident when you're repeating the same thing he said. Unnecessary jargon is what I've read.

totality of Logic is necessary, Without logic we have no support for a claim, including claims about the ineffable nature of X.

That’s the while point of ineffable nature. Your points above already answer this point for you.

 

[Udlmaster]

This is confusing because while we say that X cannot be described, but at the same time describe it as indescribable, this leads us to a circular argument, just going back in circles to the same point.

And this is the point. You are using Classical Logic which doesn't apply, like trying to use a spoon to chop down a tree.

So if something is beyond all description/word/terms, then to say that it is indescribable doesn't really mean anything. We wouldn't have any reason to talk about it or explain it. In other words, we can't use any action like language/speech/thoughts about God, just nothing, to say that it is beyond words.

That's the point. Besides declaring it is beyond mortal man that is where the conversation ends.

Buddha describes such things as a man, blind from birth, attempting to describe colour.

In Exodus 3:14, The Christian God when asked who he, Moses, should say sent him responded with "I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you"

simply to talk about something that cannot be expressed in words. beyond words, one would try to talk about God – even with words that mean no or not – this works against the idea that God is beyond all words.

Not so. We use words like a boat traversing a river. It is merely a tool which can then be discarded when we have reached the other side.

Presuppose for a moment that such a being is extant, beyond all reason, understanding and exists outside of any label or description, for the sake of argument.

When I refer to this being so, I do not really refer to them, because I cannot, as they cannot be known in this way. It is no more circular than any other self-evident fact.

To argue that Logic is absolute, that all things can be drawn into human conception is to be woefully ignorant of all that still lays beyond us. It is more circular, as it is Logic eating its own tail.

Let me then ask you, what therefore is the foundation of Logic? What root does it have? Does it have a root? And if it doesn't, then how did it come to be?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Let me then ask you, what therefore is the foundation of Logic? What root does it have? Does it have a root? And if it doesn't, then how did it come to be?

Thomas Aquinas type ordeal.

 

[Lordhesperus]

And this is the point. You are using Classical Logic which doesn't apply, like trying to use a spoon to chop down a tree.


That's the point. Besides declaring it is beyond mortal man that is where the conversation ends.

Buddha describes such things as a man, blind from birth, attempting to describe colour.

In Exodus 3:14, The Christian God when asked who he, Moses, should say sent him responded with "I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you"


Not so. We use words like a boat traversing a river. It is merely a tool which can then be discarded when we have reached the other side.

Presuppose for a moment that such a being is extant, beyond all reason, understanding and exists outside of any label or description, for the sake of argument.

When I refer to this being so, I do not really refer to them, because I cannot, as they cannot be known in this way. It is no more circular than any other self-evident fact.

To argue that Logic is absolute, that all things can be drawn into human conception is to be woefully ignorant of all that still lays beyond us. It is more circular, as it is Logic eating its own tail.

Let me then ask you, what therefore is the foundation of Logic? What root does it have? Does it have a root? And if it doesn't, then how did it come to be?

I don't know what the Foundation of Logic is,

but I don't agree with the idea that God is beyond all reason/logic, it's more accurate to say that God is logic itself. and this does not mean that I am saying God is bound by human logic.

so Think about a great clock. You could say that the clockmaker is the plan, the whole thought of the clock. The clockmaker is not just what made the parts of the clock (the logic) the clockmaker is the reason the clock works so well. It's like the clockmaker is the logic behind the clock.

The process/act of creation begins with a Reason when it comes to Reason or logic. The concept of "Logos" represents this idea. It is the concept in which logic plays a role in the process of creation. in The principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz expressed it quite well when he said:

that nothing happens without a reason.

The Bible talks about how everything started:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1

So God is not some beyond all of Reason/logic. In fact, God is Logos/ logic itself and God Is Logos. It's like God isn't just using logic, but is the very essence of it. Logic isn't something separate that even God has to follow. It's part of what makes God, God.

I agree with the rest. Yes, we are actually very limited beings and we cannot describe/understand God, that is the ultimate reality.

But I just think that if we use negative theology in fiction or some fictional context, I can hardly stand that there is an Eternal Ineffable Being for fiction? A real-life writer, especially a Marvel writer, can write this being as ineffable in his story, and then another writer in another story can write this character differently. How can you turn something that's supposed to be beyond description into a character in a comic?

 

[Udlmaster]

I don't know what the Foundation of Logic is,

Even logic doesn't have a rational root, then how can you say all things must have a root in Logic?

it's more accurate to say that God is logic itself. and this does not mean that I am saying God is bound by human logic.

I don't think it's any more accurate than saying God is unknowable and beyond human understand.

After all, do you speak to the Divine? Does he say unto you "I am this"?

The process/act of creation begins with a Reason when it comes to Reason or logic.

Then what is the reason for God's own self-created nature? Something that creates itself has no basis in Logic.

The concept of "Logos" represents this idea. It is the concept in which logic plays a role in the process of creation.

Logos is just one part of God, but it is not the whole of God or its root.

In Gnosticism, Logos is just one emanation of God.

In Islam, Aql is used for the Finite to commune with the Infinite.

In fact, God is Logos/ logic itself and God Is Logos.

Again, do you speak with the Divine? Have they given of their unknowable nature unto you? Do they speak to you the secrets which are not afforded to man or beast?

It's like God isn't just using logic, but is the very essence of it. Logic isn't something separate that even God has to follow. It's part of what makes God, God.

I don't know what God is doing.

And I think that's fine.

Yes, there's theological ideas that God is Logic, that his Omnipotence is the ability to any possible thing, but that's not the held belief of all theologians and many people have argued against it.

I think it's ultimately an tale of wasted effort to try and capture God in a box.