User Controls
The Grand Ideal
-
2018-02-28 at 6:23 AM UTCSo "God" is a stepping stone on the way to the grand ideal. But what is the grand ideal? Discuss.
-
2018-02-28 at 6:52 AM UTCI'm not entirely sure, but I think after we lost our God and had a lot of really great ideas on what to do with our godless nature except that, somewhere along the way, we started being fat, mindless slobs governed like cattle by psychopaths, so whatever grand arc of human achievement was meant to occur after diverting the public consciousness away from this authority obviously didn't happen as planned.
One thing must be said about God - it's a really nice idea, to believe that we are reflections of this perfect being that represents the pinnacle of spiritual and moral being. It's a fundamentally narcissistic self-relationship, but it's a purpose. -
2018-02-28 at 6:55 AM UTCNon-existence has no problems. The grand ideal is the destruction of the very fabric of reality.
-
2018-02-28 at 7:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I'm not entirely sure, but I think after we lost our God and had a lot of really great ideas on what to do with our godless nature except that, somewhere along the way, we started being fat, mindless slobs governed like cattle by psychopaths, so whatever grand arc of human achievement was meant to occur after diverting the public consciousness away from this authority obviously didn't happen as planned.
One thing must be said about God - it's a really nice idea, to believe that we are reflections of this perfect being that represents the pinnacle of spiritual and moral being. It's a fundamentally narcissistic self-relationship, but it's a purpose.
My opinion is that godhood is a primitive conception of the grand ideal. What the grand ideal is, I don't know exactly but I'd wager it is a metaconcept regarding the nature of being, nonbeing, and the directing on which those two exist. In fact I believe the spectrum extend to something beyond being: a level of existence beyond the mere fact of not being null, something opposite it. In my mind, existence is a median. -
2018-02-28 at 7:24 AM UTC
-
2018-02-28 at 7:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Non-existence has no problems. The grand ideal is the destruction of the very fabric of reality.
That is only in the Buddhist conception of a deity. I believe OP is referring to the Western God at the center of the Abrahamic tradition which has often been the subject of Nietzschean criticism. -
2018-02-28 at 7:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus "Problems" are inapplicable to universal metaconcepts; existence and the lack of existence are indifferen. Existence has no problems either. Name me one.
For the sake of argument, there is the inevitable suffering of all life which gradually leads us to a fiery demise. This is strictly from a humanistic perspective, however. -
2018-02-28 at 7:32 AM UTCAny understanding of (at least the abrahamic notion of) God as a "stepping stone" to anything seems like a misunderstanding. That's kind of the defining quality of absolute divinities, they're thing thing from which everything else emanates. Kinda like how the ontological argument works, anything your propose to be "beyond" God or something to which God is a means becomes subsumed under the notion of God definitionally.
-
2018-02-28 at 7:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus My opinion is that godhood is a primitive conception of the grand ideal. What the grand ideal is, I don't know exactly but I'd wager it is a metaconcept regarding the nature of being, nonbeing, and the directing on which those two exist. In fact I believe the spectrum extend to something beyond being: a level of existence beyond the mere fact of not being null, something opposite it. In my mind, existence is a median.
I've also wondered if there isn't some alternative to the dichotomy of being/not-being, such as maybe beings that are sometimes not-being, or even usually not-being. But the range of being doesn't have to be confined to a binary, or even within a range between these two modalities - perhaps like you said, there is some kind of existence which defies the categories of ordinary being and nonbeing. Whether it would be an innate quality of that post-being or something acquired through the selection of superior strains of lower, sometimes-or-always-beings to transcend their plane of existence in some kind of metaphysical evolution, I can't really say. -
2018-02-28 at 10:57 AM UTCexistence exists because it can, so it does.
and that's all there is to it really. you goofy self-imposed 'intellectual' motherfuckers just be over thinkin shit.
. -
2018-02-28 at 12:22 PM UTC
-
2018-02-28 at 12:22 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-28 at 1:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Any understanding of (at least the abrahamic notion of) God as a "stepping stone" to anything seems like a misunderstanding. That's kind of the defining quality of absolute divinities, they're thing thing from which everything else emanates. Kinda like how the ontological argument works, anything your propose to be "beyond" God or something to which God is a means becomes subsumed under the notion of God definitionally.
I think at some point you have to be intellectually honest and draw the line of "god" where it stops being personal. You can call the grand ideal "God" but that's not really the sense it's used in.
The stepping stone is the notion of the "father", an ultimate caring being watching over us, who is the wellspring of morality, the ultimate handwave of all unknowns. The grand ideal would transcend such terminal notions. For example if you could make some kind of an objective morality, I'd argue you could call that an aspect of "god", but nobody would really see it that way. -
2018-02-28 at 1:55 PM UTC
-
2018-02-28 at 2:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick For the sake of argument, there is the inevitable suffering of all life which gradually leads us to a fiery demise. This is strictly from a humanistic perspective, however.
I'd argue that suffering is relative to each individual that experiences it, so it's not necessarily tied to the existence of a person. Te two concepts are not inseperable. But I was thinking about the humanistic perspective, but existence at large. -
2018-02-28 at 2:32 PM UTCWhy is it always the "fabric" of reality?
Why not metal or rubber or ceramic? -
2018-02-28 at 2:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Juicebox Why is it always the "fabric" of reality?
Why not metal or rubber or ceramic?
My understanding is it’s an analogy meant to convey that space/time is not rigid, it can flex and warp. Like if you placed a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline.
There’s a lot of stuff you could say and mean the same thing, I guess “fabric” is just the word that stuck -
2018-02-28 at 2:54 PM UTCIt's more that fabric is woven from thread, and thread is spun from fibers, and fibers are collated from.... and so on. It just describes the nature of reality, where you can view it at varying levels of granularity.
-
2018-02-28 at 3:01 PM UTCI guess there’s different intrepretations.
Why u always gotta be contrarian, mothafucka -
2018-02-28 at 4:33 PM UTC
