Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine Black Poppies
I see what you're getting at and it's a legitimate criticism that had me stewing for a bit.
The counterpoint I've come up with has a couple different parts, but they're very interconnected (heh) so I'm going to try and put them in a way that makes sense but I'm not sure how clear it'll come out.
Basically, the parts are:
1. In the idea of total interconnectivity, you can't totally separate the whole from the self--what's good for one is good for the other
2. Any perspective we might have isn't a complete picture because we're fundamentally unable to be objective or contain all the relevant information
Consider the ill-fated good people you talk about and how many of them are self-defined as happy, despite their negative circumstances (see also: "Man's Search for Meaning" by Frankl or the biblical parable of Job) and, on a similar wavelength, the malaise prevalent in those we might consider socially fortunate (see: most American literature from the mid-20th century on for examples).
The kind of social hypocrisy that you're talking about is a fundamental to the necessity of evil to exist for there to be will. In cause-and-effect type terms, I think of it like... um. I can't remember the name for it, it's a calculus thing--the line that eternally approaches zero without ever reaching it. We're constantly evolving, trying to resolve the equation of our existence in a moral dimension, but it's a perfectly imperfect system (such is the nature of the infinite)--for us to have a moral choice, we must be able to choose evil sometimes and because we're imperfect we sometimes do. This falls in line very directly with the idea of a JudeoChristian God.
The idea in Judeochristian theology is that there is some kind of ultimate reward that allows for virtuous suffering in this life to be rewarded in another iteration of existence. Frankly, I don't know how to speak to that. I don't think there IS any way to speak to that outside "mythology" because we have no empirical evidence of what experience might or might not exist after death as we understand it. I could start talking about multidimensionality and the nonexistence of time as they could potentially relate to consciousness (there's that tangent again), but it'd be hypothesizing at best. As an aside, focusing solely on empiricism to understand the universe is fatally flawed, but that's a topic for another day.
I dunno if I really addressed what you were saying--I'm kind of thinking as I go here. I'm curious what your thoughts are. Thanks for engaging on my level. Also, Dead Can Dance? Nice.
|
After reading your recent posts, I think I'm beginning to understand what you are really trying to say. If I'm not wrong, the heart of the matter is: "
omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent". An
individual infinite entity cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent at the same time. He/she couldn't exist, since his/her attributes would be self-contradictory. It's metaphysically impossible. So then you wondered: what could be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent at the same time?
Regarding interconnectivity and its related ideas, they aren't new to me, actually. I've heard of them sometimes. In Italian and Spanish (and probably in other languages too) the word for
coincidence (
casualità and
casualidad, respectively) is very similar to that for
causality (you only have to swap two letters). So some Italian and Spanish-speaking authors have made a pun and said that "
coincidences (
casualità, casualidades)
are actually causalities (
causalità, causalidades)". Also, I've heard of
chaos theory (and the
butterfly effect, etc...) applied to philosophy and social sciences, although only superficially. I've got to read more on the subject. In fact, I have a book (an essay) about it (
Chaos and Order by A. Escohotado; it's not translated into English) but I still haven't read it (I'm lazier than a marble plane). Anyway, I think everybody can understand that what you said about the consequences (sometimes unexpected) of our actions. Even things like those shown in the film
Babel are possible.
Finally, if we introduce morality into the system... whew! Everything becomes even more complicated. It's so...
relative?
chaotic? I don't know... it isn't clear to me. I have to study it carefully. However, and despite my limited knowledge on philosophy, some points remind me of Stoicism and Seneca. Am I right?
Linear Mode
