• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

I keep telling y'all. The "new" High 1B meta doesn't exist. BestMGQ made a single statement then ran away. Bro's lying to everyone😂 If it truly existed, I would have known.
 
Theoretical said:
💀
Click to expand...
Negative negative theology victim
I have already spoken at length about this Nothing. Perhaps cheekily, I denoted it as, that between ‘as’ and the comma – an absence. Even then, I admitted that this too was an abstraction, an imperfect form meant to communicate somewhat that evaded communication. Nothing is not ‘not anything.’ Even using this term, ‘Nothing’, is incorrect. You can’t reach it by negations, or absences. Any statement:
‘Nothing is …’
‘Nothing does …’
‘Nothing has …’
etc.
would be incorrect, excepting maybe that most basic saying of the philosopher Heidegger: ‘Nothing nothings.’
Click to expand...
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
tbh ineffability thesis also states something like "for assertion A, God is "not A" and not "not A"" So that is still a part of negative theology
Click to expand...
Ye... But you know like for assertion A god is ¬A and ¬(¬A) is primarily implying you can't assert anything about God, which is why philosophers after positing it just choose silence as a way to inevitably conclude on the take away of the ineffability thesis.
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
What if even silence cannot represent it.
Click to expand...
Silence just comes from the fact that you can't infer or affirm anything about God because God is outside of intelligibility, silence doesn't represent God it represents our limitations when trying to reach God through something God's transcends (intelligibility).
BestMGQScalerEver said:
Negative negative theology victim
Click to expand...
What is that another Chinese novel?
 
Theoretical said:
Ye... But you know like for assertion A god is ¬A and ¬(¬A) is primarily implying you can't assert anything about God, which is why philosophers after positing it just choose silence as a way to inevitably conclude on the take away of the ineffability thesis.

Silence just comes from the fact that you can't infer or affirm anything about God because God is outside of intelligibility, silence doesn't represent God it represents our limitations when trying to reach God through something God's transcends (intelligibility).

What is that another Chinese novel?
Click to expand...
but, isn't saying god is beyond intelligibility the same as saying god is beyond compreshension and understanding?
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
but, isn't saying god is beyond intelligibility the same as saying god is beyond compreshension and understanding?
Click to expand...
It's not anything new, really - "God works in mysterious ways" / "Writes straight with crooked lines" / similar phrases are basically present everywhere. Even if we don't explictly say it like that, the idea that (western/arabic, abrahamic) god is not within the scope of the common man is very easy to find, because it's almost a foundational notion not spoken.
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
but, isn't saying god is beyond intelligibility the same as saying god is beyond compreshension and understanding?
Click to expand...
Eh, not really.

I mean technically you can make the argument for impossible worlds beyond comprehension if you take comprehension something that's only logically sound and doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

Bohm also posits order in its totality to be undefinable by virtue of it pervading everything in reality from the mind, language, matter etc. Absolute infinity is also technically comprehension so merely being beyond comprehension doesn't simply count as being beyond intelligibility.
 
Theoretical said:
Eh, not really.

I mean technically you can make the argument for impossible worlds beyond comprehension if you take comprehension something that's only logically sound and doesn't contradict the laws of logic.
Click to expand...
One somewhat obvious problem here is that, if possible and impossible be taken as "possible to exist" and "not possible to exist", an "impossible world" that does in fact exist (physically/materialized/actualized) would be by definition a contradiction.

The second part of your post somewhat reminds me of Kant's thing-in-itself. The very fact we are not only separate, but only capable of perceiving anything that is not our own consciousness by process that necessarily affect the way we perceive things, implies anything we know outside of said consciousness is an image of that thing.

But I would argue we do not comprehend "Absolute Infinity", we comprehend what the person is trying to convey through the evocation of such a concept, which would be very different. We as humans have enormous diffulty even understanding the idea of something some orders of magnetude larger, to say we can comprehend infinity would be awkward. I would even argue we can only conceive Infinite as a "process that is never ending" or something of the sort, and that is not Infinite in itself, merely something continuous. To comprehend something Infinite we would have ourselfs to be in someway Infinite, I would say.
 
Last edited:
so...when are we getting something above apophatic theology? I mean, we thought omnipotence was the highest and nothing could be above it, and then we got Negative theology which is >omnipotence. In the future we will get something above negative theology.
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
so...when are we getting something above apophatic theology? I mean, we thought omnipotence was the highest and nothing could be above it, and then we got Negative theology which is >omnipotence. In the future we will get something above negative theology.
Click to expand...
Never, unless someone open another philosophy book and cook it with math
 
By the way, I think I found the High 1B stuff that was implied in the Tsukihime remake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Violatas
  • Locked
Nasuverse: Word of God Scaling Removal
2
Replies
71
Views
10K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
TyphonEX
  • Locked
Fate/Extra CCC p&a cleanup (Part 1?)
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
CrimsonStarFallen
  • Locked
Nasuverse Discussion Rule
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
Violatas
Violatas
OuterLine0
  • Locked
Nasuverse Tier 0 Update
Replies
11
Views
8K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Tdjwo
Minor Ability addition for some Nasuverse characters
Replies
22
Views
4K
ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn
ShiftCtrlAltDeleteTabFn
Back
Top