> Words describing the horrific incidents which religion gave birth to,
> like the holocaust, the crusades, the Gulags, the Inca and Aztec
> religious attrocities, the inquisition, the religious divide in
> Palestine/Israel, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, India and about ever
> damn country in the world except the Vatican State maybe? etc., [one
> could go on ALL DAY] These infamous words ["God" and "Being"] should
> NEVER be forgotten or expunged from our dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
People (wicked beings) use any pretext to kill and make war with each other.
Bereft of religion, they would find every time a new pretext to do it, be it
in the name of public interest, money, oil, utility, human rights (sic!) of
mere whim of politicians, who would have then to seek new ways to getting it
done (with legitimateness).
People who kill each other in the name of God, they are simply ignoring
God's commandments. Crusaders were unfaithful to God, because if Christian
worship God here and Muslims worship God there, then it is no problem. The
people who used God as pretext to make war were just traitors of God
(provided God Himself did not advance war in that particular case as the
least of some evils).
> (2) The word "thing" is a handy little communicational tool for use when
> a less detailed descriptive reference is made to an object in discussion.
> For example rather than repeat: "Bring me the tempered steel, semi-
> eliptical, longitudinal, asymmetrical leaf-spring!" it is far easier for
> an engineer to shout: "Bring the thing here." This temporary denotative
> signification is fine and dandy, for in this case the entity referenced
> by the word is mutually understood and agreed following from being
> employed antecedally.
Words are not temporary, but they are enduring. So, denying that the word
"thing" means the same at different times, it is annulling this word.
Well, if you being with removing the word "thing", then, if you are
consequent, you will remove the words "steel", "asymmetrical", etc., till
you are left unable to speak because you have no words at all.
> (3) As for the word "awareness" it is a perfectly good word - nothing
> wrong with it at all as long as it is fully understood the ontologically
> IT DOESN'T EXIST and that only that which is aware exists. The same goes
> for any of these "-ness, -ity, -hood, abstractions - as long as our
> schools start to teach the kids that those words only describe a state of
> modality of some entity or entities that exist - then everything will be
> fine and the many-headed hydra of destructive transcendentalism will be
> kept at bay.
Well, to be sure, ALL words are abstractions! (I think you never ate the
word "apple"...)
> Tudor:
> Suddenly, one of them has a vision of God.
>
> Jud:
> In such a society a team of mental health medics would be summoned
> immediately. No citizen would be abandoned to find his own way into
> the legion of the religiously damaged or end up a gutter-bum.
> All physiological and psychological problems such as the religious
> hysteria you illustrate would receive instant hospitalisation.
>
> Tudor:
> He tells them: "I saw God, He exists!"
>
> Jud:
> His nurses would smile indulgently and ask him what drugs he had been
> taking.
Nietzsche's argument with the (happy and eye-blinking) last man is still not
refuted in respect to such a problem.
Besides, if one thinks that religion is mere mental illness, exploding bombs
during the Holy Mass is the logical step "ahead". Or, equally well, the
Lenin-Stalin method of dealing with Christians follows in that order.
> Could they disprove that God exists?
>
> Jud:
> NOBODY can disprove the non-existence of GOD or anything else to anybody
> -
> because neither "existence" or "non-existence exist.
You contradict yourself, because if (the fact of) existing and existence do
not exist, then how could one say "neither ... or ... EXIST"?
> They could demand that God be produced immediately as evidence for the
> claim. If no such evidence were forthcoming then the claim would be
> false. {as it is with the "Being" fantasy]
Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
(or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able to
show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in respect
to such a problem?
> Tudor:
> So, in order for them to disprove his vision, they all or some of
> them have to learn the new word, "God", employ it and begin anew with
> the questions pertaining to metaphysics.
>
> Jud:
> No, they would be quite aware of the meaning and import of the word and
> take steps accordingly. In the odd case [and I am only going along with
> this charade to amuse myself] where a person had never herald the word
> "God" before, he would soon realise what the patient was suffering from
> when the poor man went into greater detail as to the so-called nature of
> this "God" He may well demand evidence as to the fact that this "God"
> existed - and then again he may not, but rather silently leave the room,
> close the door quietly, and hope that when he did his ward-rounds later
> the patient might have recovered a little after a good rest.
In fact, there is no way out of metaphysics (i.e. thinking by employing
abstractions). All one can do is metaphysically deny he does metaphysics,
which is a self-refuting argument.
Metaphysics is just employing abstractions in thinking on real life
problems, e.g. discussing social problems. And, if one's metaphysical
intelligence is not high enough, then the solutions he furthers in respect
to social problems will be inadequate, producing bigger problems than before
they got applied.
Windows update patches work for PC's, but political patches are not the way
to govern a society.
> Tudor:
> In fact, they would be not more advanced, but more retarded. All their
> devices which ensured for their high living standard were in fact turning
> them into metaphysical retards.
>
> Jud:
> "Metaphysics" would not be an issue. By the time you mention [surely you
> mean the year 50,000 - not 5000?] metaphysics will be just as much a part
> of history as "God" or "Being." and will be on par with the crudities
> of the New Guinean natives and their Gods with no heads that glowed at
> the neck.
Primitives are no match for the evilness of modern human. I think Zygmunt
Bauman showed well enough that holocausts happen because of metaphysical
wannabe-ism (they are the effects of the metaphysics of subjectivity). Of
course the metaphysics of subjectivity is not the only cause of them,
because another reason for it is that (some) people often think that if you
can screw others, you should not miss the opportunity, regardless of how
inhumane and horrendous your deed is.
What I plead for is becoming aware of our social nature, and about the
(individual and/or collective) peculiarities of this strange being: the
human.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> like the holocaust, the crusades, the Gulags, the Inca and Aztec
> religious attrocities, the inquisition, the religious divide in
> Palestine/Israel, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, India and about ever
> damn country in the world except the Vatican State maybe? etc., [one
> could go on ALL DAY] These infamous words ["God" and "Being"] should
> NEVER be forgotten or expunged from our dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
People (wicked beings) use any pretext to kill and make war with each other.
Bereft of religion, they would find every time a new pretext to do it, be it
in the name of public interest, money, oil, utility, human rights (sic!) of
mere whim of politicians, who would have then to seek new ways to getting it
done (with legitimateness).
People who kill each other in the name of God, they are simply ignoring
God's commandments. Crusaders were unfaithful to God, because if Christian
worship God here and Muslims worship God there, then it is no problem. The
people who used God as pretext to make war were just traitors of God
(provided God Himself did not advance war in that particular case as the
least of some evils).
> (2) The word "thing" is a handy little communicational tool for use when
> a less detailed descriptive reference is made to an object in discussion.
> For example rather than repeat: "Bring me the tempered steel, semi-
> eliptical, longitudinal, asymmetrical leaf-spring!" it is far easier for
> an engineer to shout: "Bring the thing here." This temporary denotative
> signification is fine and dandy, for in this case the entity referenced
> by the word is mutually understood and agreed following from being
> employed antecedally.
Words are not temporary, but they are enduring. So, denying that the word
"thing" means the same at different times, it is annulling this word.
Well, if you being with removing the word "thing", then, if you are
consequent, you will remove the words "steel", "asymmetrical", etc., till
you are left unable to speak because you have no words at all.
> (3) As for the word "awareness" it is a perfectly good word - nothing
> wrong with it at all as long as it is fully understood the ontologically
> IT DOESN'T EXIST and that only that which is aware exists. The same goes
> for any of these "-ness, -ity, -hood, abstractions - as long as our
> schools start to teach the kids that those words only describe a state of
> modality of some entity or entities that exist - then everything will be
> fine and the many-headed hydra of destructive transcendentalism will be
> kept at bay.
Well, to be sure, ALL words are abstractions! (I think you never ate the
word "apple"...)
> Tudor:
> Suddenly, one of them has a vision of God.
>
> Jud:
> In such a society a team of mental health medics would be summoned
> immediately. No citizen would be abandoned to find his own way into
> the legion of the religiously damaged or end up a gutter-bum.
> All physiological and psychological problems such as the religious
> hysteria you illustrate would receive instant hospitalisation.
>
> Tudor:
> He tells them: "I saw God, He exists!"
>
> Jud:
> His nurses would smile indulgently and ask him what drugs he had been
> taking.
Nietzsche's argument with the (happy and eye-blinking) last man is still not
refuted in respect to such a problem.
Besides, if one thinks that religion is mere mental illness, exploding bombs
during the Holy Mass is the logical step "ahead". Or, equally well, the
Lenin-Stalin method of dealing with Christians follows in that order.
> Could they disprove that God exists?
>
> Jud:
> NOBODY can disprove the non-existence of GOD or anything else to anybody
> -
> because neither "existence" or "non-existence exist.
You contradict yourself, because if (the fact of) existing and existence do
not exist, then how could one say "neither ... or ... EXIST"?
> They could demand that God be produced immediately as evidence for the
> claim. If no such evidence were forthcoming then the claim would be
> false. {as it is with the "Being" fantasy]
Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
(or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able to
show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in respect
to such a problem?
> Tudor:
> So, in order for them to disprove his vision, they all or some of
> them have to learn the new word, "God", employ it and begin anew with
> the questions pertaining to metaphysics.
>
> Jud:
> No, they would be quite aware of the meaning and import of the word and
> take steps accordingly. In the odd case [and I am only going along with
> this charade to amuse myself] where a person had never herald the word
> "God" before, he would soon realise what the patient was suffering from
> when the poor man went into greater detail as to the so-called nature of
> this "God" He may well demand evidence as to the fact that this "God"
> existed - and then again he may not, but rather silently leave the room,
> close the door quietly, and hope that when he did his ward-rounds later
> the patient might have recovered a little after a good rest.
In fact, there is no way out of metaphysics (i.e. thinking by employing
abstractions). All one can do is metaphysically deny he does metaphysics,
which is a self-refuting argument.
Metaphysics is just employing abstractions in thinking on real life
problems, e.g. discussing social problems. And, if one's metaphysical
intelligence is not high enough, then the solutions he furthers in respect
to social problems will be inadequate, producing bigger problems than before
they got applied.
Windows update patches work for PC's, but political patches are not the way
to govern a society.
> Tudor:
> In fact, they would be not more advanced, but more retarded. All their
> devices which ensured for their high living standard were in fact turning
> them into metaphysical retards.
>
> Jud:
> "Metaphysics" would not be an issue. By the time you mention [surely you
> mean the year 50,000 - not 5000?] metaphysics will be just as much a part
> of history as "God" or "Being." and will be on par with the crudities
> of the New Guinean natives and their Gods with no heads that glowed at
> the neck.
Primitives are no match for the evilness of modern human. I think Zygmunt
Bauman showed well enough that holocausts happen because of metaphysical
wannabe-ism (they are the effects of the metaphysics of subjectivity). Of
course the metaphysics of subjectivity is not the only cause of them,
because another reason for it is that (some) people often think that if you
can screw others, you should not miss the opportunity, regardless of how
inhumane and horrendous your deed is.
What I plead for is becoming aware of our social nature, and about the
(individual and/or collective) peculiarities of this strange being: the
human.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---