- Joined
- Mar 25, 2022
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 19
I think I have a problem.
My problem is that I have very little in the way of groups (anymore) that discuss these sorts of things in a real (haha) sense, or at least take the topic with a sense of credulity and not the whole "omg, are you going on about existentialism AGAIN", but here we are.
is a book by J.H. Tuckwell published in 1915 as part of a series of discussion (possibly now lost to the void of time) about the nature of reality, god, and the universe. In this tome, Tuckwell argues three main points:
1) The world Exists. Not in the sense of Plato's world of forms, something we interact with tangentially, with the real thing so far out of reach that we can only access it in the same manner as the three blind men and the elephant, but in a sense of limitations. We interact with the world in a very real sense, our senses do not lie to us, and we affect the world as much as it affects us.
2) God is defined as The Thing which can contemplate All, or in his words "The Perfect". This isn't a "oh hey, an omniscient being", but possibly in more of a pantheistic sense that the Universe Is and the sum of everything existing is The Perfect. This is different than something existing objectively and we only are capable of achieving subjective responses to it. I believe that he is attempting to argue for;
3) Something which I have come to call Intersubjectivity (different from the definition, but not far off). The world exists, and we as beings that exist within it are both affecting and are affected by it. To achieve Objectivity, we would have to exist in all places at all times forever, which not only is unfeasible for any individual person (both due to the limitations of their existence but also the limitations of their capacity of understanding) but also impossible for anything that isn't the totality. Yes, we can achieve a closeness to objectivity as we summate the subjective experiences of each individual, but even if we (literally All of the Us) come together to agree upon the totatilty, it is not only fleeting but also still not completely existing as the sum of totality due to our capacity of understanding.
But Gecko, you ask rhetorically, how does that pertain to existentialism??!
You're good to ask, random forum goer, because it's a weird thread to follow. If there is no such thing as Objectivity, both in existence and in morals, that means the only thing that ultimately matters is that which we, cumulatively, agree upon. If that means the world is an ever changing existence with which we can manipulate to our own ends, with each person weighing differently in the "future" (past? present? alternate timeline??) as we march ever onwards, then so be it.
If you're following the thread, this also leads one to chaos magic as Carroll defines in it his "algorithm", but that's for another thread...
My problem is that I have very little in the way of groups (anymore) that discuss these sorts of things in a real (haha) sense, or at least take the topic with a sense of credulity and not the whole "omg, are you going on about existentialism AGAIN", but here we are.
is a book by J.H. Tuckwell published in 1915 as part of a series of discussion (possibly now lost to the void of time) about the nature of reality, god, and the universe. In this tome, Tuckwell argues three main points:
1) The world Exists. Not in the sense of Plato's world of forms, something we interact with tangentially, with the real thing so far out of reach that we can only access it in the same manner as the three blind men and the elephant, but in a sense of limitations. We interact with the world in a very real sense, our senses do not lie to us, and we affect the world as much as it affects us.
2) God is defined as The Thing which can contemplate All, or in his words "The Perfect". This isn't a "oh hey, an omniscient being", but possibly in more of a pantheistic sense that the Universe Is and the sum of everything existing is The Perfect. This is different than something existing objectively and we only are capable of achieving subjective responses to it. I believe that he is attempting to argue for;
3) Something which I have come to call Intersubjectivity (different from the definition, but not far off). The world exists, and we as beings that exist within it are both affecting and are affected by it. To achieve Objectivity, we would have to exist in all places at all times forever, which not only is unfeasible for any individual person (both due to the limitations of their existence but also the limitations of their capacity of understanding) but also impossible for anything that isn't the totality. Yes, we can achieve a closeness to objectivity as we summate the subjective experiences of each individual, but even if we (literally All of the Us) come together to agree upon the totatilty, it is not only fleeting but also still not completely existing as the sum of totality due to our capacity of understanding.
But Gecko, you ask rhetorically, how does that pertain to existentialism??!
You're good to ask, random forum goer, because it's a weird thread to follow. If there is no such thing as Objectivity, both in existence and in morals, that means the only thing that ultimately matters is that which we, cumulatively, agree upon. If that means the world is an ever changing existence with which we can manipulate to our own ends, with each person weighing differently in the "future" (past? present? alternate timeline??) as we march ever onwards, then so be it.
If you're following the thread, this also leads one to chaos magic as Carroll defines in it his "algorithm", but that's for another thread...
