explosiveoxygen said:

Fairy tales written to keep the rabble in check.

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

Forbidden fruit is what you make of it.  I understand that, physically, forbidden fruit is just matter arranged in a particular way.  Why should any matter be off limits?

---

Quote:

"For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression "being". We, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed.

Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word 'being'? Not at all. So it is fitting that we should raise anew the question of the meaning of Being. But are we nowadays even perplexed at our inability to understand the expression 'Being'? Not at all. So first of all we must reawaken an understanding for the meaning of this question. Our aim in the following treatise is to work out the question of the meaning of being and to do so concretely...

1. The necessity for explicitly restating the question of being

This question has today been forgotten. Even though in our time we deem it progressive to give our approval to 'metaphysics' again, it is held that we have been exempted from the exertions of a newly rekindled "Gigantomachy of substance". Yet the question we are touching upon is not just any question. It is one which provided a stimulus for the researches of Plato and Aristotle, only to subside from then on as a theme for actual investigation. What these two men achieved was to persist through many alterations and 'retouchings' down to the "logic" of Hegel. And what they wrested with the utmost intellectual effort from the phenomena, fragmentary and incipient though it was, has long since become trivialized.

Not only that. On the basis of the Greeks' initial contributions towards an interpretation of being, a dogma has been developed which not only declares the question about the meaning of being as superfluous but sanctions its complete neglect. It is said that 'Being' is the most universal and the emptiest of concepts. As such it resists every attempt at definition. Nor does this most universal and hence indefinable concept require any definition, for everyone uses it constantly and already understands what he means by it. In this way, that which the ancient philosophers found continually disturbing as something obscure and hidden has taken on a clarity and self evidence such that if anyone continues to ask about it, he is charged with an error of method.

---

Quote:

At the beginning of our investigation it is not possible to give a detailed account of the presuppositions and prejudices which are constantly reimplanting and fostering the belief that an inquiry into being is unnecessary. They are rooted in ancient ontology itself, and it will not be possible to interpret that ontology adequately until the question of Being has been clarified and answered and taken as a clue - at least, if we are to have regard for the soil from which the basic ontological concepts developed, and if we are to see whether the categories have been demonstrated in a way that is appropriate and complete. We shall therefore carry the discussion of these presuppositions only to the point at which the necessity for restating the question about the meaning of being becomes plain. There are three such presuppositions.

1. First it has been maintained that 'being' is the 'most universal' concept 'An understanding of Being is already included in conceiving anything which one apprehends as an entity.' But the (ontical) universality of being is not that of a class or genus. The term being does not define that realm of entities which is uppermost when these are articulated conceptually according to genus and species. The universality of being transcends any universality of genus. In medieval ontology 'being' is designated as 'transcendus'. Aristotle himself knew the unity of this transcendental 'universal' as a unity of analogy in contrast to the multiplicity of the highest generic concepts applicable to things. With this discovery, in spite of his dependence on the way in which the ontological question had been formulated by Plato, he put the problem of Being on what was, in principal, a new basis. To be sure, even Aristotle failed to clear away the darkness of these categorial interconnections. In medieval ontology this problem was widely discussed, especially in the Thomist and Scotist schools, without reaching clarity as to principals. And when Hegel at least defines 'being' as the 'indeterminate immediate' and makes this definition basic for all the further categorial explications of his 'logic', he keeps looking in the same direction as ancient ontology, except that he no longer pays heed to Aristotle's problem of the unity of being as over against the multiplicity of 'categories' applicable to things. So if it is said that 'being ' is the most universal concepts, this cannot mean that it is one which is clearest or that it needs no further discussion. It is rather the darkest of all.

2. It has been maintained secondly that the concept of 'being ' is indefinable. This is deduced frome its supreme universality, and rightly so, if definitio fit per genus proximum et differentiam specificam. Being cannot indeed be conceived as an (ontological) entity, nor can it aquire such a character as to have the term "entity" applied to it. "Being" cannot be derived from higher concepts by definition, nor can it be presented through lower ones. But does this imply that 'being' no longer offers a problem? not at all. We can infer only that being cannot have the character of an entity. Thus we cannot apply to Being the concept of 'definition' as presented in traditional logic, which itself has its foundations in ancient ontology and which, within certain limits, provides a quite justifiable way of defining "entities," The indefinability of Being does not eliminate the question of its meaning; it demands that we look that question in the face.

3. Thirdly, it is held that 'Being' is of all concepts the one that is self evident. Whenever one cognizes anything or makes an assertion, whenever one comports oneself towards, entities, even towards oneself, some use is made of 'Being'; and this expression is held to be intelligable "without further ado', just as everyone understands "the sky is blue", "I am merry", and the like. But here we have an average kind of intelligibility (common sense), which merely demonstrates that this is unintelligable. It makes manifest that in any way of comporting oneself towards entities as entities - even in any Being towards entities as entities - there lies a priori an enigma. The very fact that we already live in an understanding of Being and that meaning of Being is still veilled in darkness proves that it is necessary in principal to raise this question again."

---

Quote:

While I certainly don't think its necessary to take it as the "the word of God", I also see a major pitfall in trying to invalidate that.

---

Quote:

First of all, concerning the word of God, discursive techniques have little way in addressing a transcendental object, and only frustrates ideological tensions on both sides. Not only is it a fruitless endeavor, but these many open atheists tend to present just as "closed" a text as their counterpart.

---

Quote:

The more general absurdity of this so-implied "occupation" of the atheist presents itself as an undue fascination with fairy tales, action figures, and teddy bears. Day after day presenting the same argument with a stern eye, there comes a point when others begin to wonder if his fascination is more or less than critical.

---

Quote:

If his room is filled with mounted trophy action-figures, teddy bear heads, and on whatever else he spends so much time depriving others, what's to say he is is not playing with the same toys? This seems to be a common mistake of the flag wavers; those typical atheistic, contra-cultural,  or counter-cultural preoccupations with "the word of God".

---

Quote:

Strictly speaking, because there is no real point in their attempts to invalidate, as evidenced by the same tired arguments (as they will often easily admit!), one also finds an undue role, a role which without fruit or substance, is one that is played.

---

Quote:

In the ordinary terms of a text, I think it is hard to doubt that this myth is relevant to both modern and ancient ethics. I also think that within this institution, which we may address from within the text, the most striking criticisms may be derived. In respect to the power of myth; indeed, in the positive interpretation of this myth as significant to both past and present, to the enlightened and unenlightened, within this, some very troubling questions arise!

---

Quote:

This myth is only relevant to modern ethics in seeing how are morals have changed. We come from a time where slavery was deemed appropriate and women seen as nothing more than cattle. We (at least some) can reflect on how wrong it is to make war based on religious views. We can see how far mankind has come in a few thousand years, and take pride in what we have achieved. We can look ahead with a renewed sense of vigor for tomorrow, and shed the chains of yesterday.

---

I would point to this as the antithesis of my essay. This presumptive distinction between the enlightened present and the dogmatic past is what prevents us from understanding ourselves.

To that, upon consideration, it is not the whole present that is enlightened, but only parts of it, if we consider how relevant this character of atheism is, right? Well in that case, it is certain individuals with certain views of how the world should be who are presently enlightened, to which it is hoped that the rest of the world conforms.

My opinion is that the bible is a text that is relevant to our current situation. It is that much (apparently so much as to convenient  atheism, among other things), but that's all.

daytripper23 said:

explosiveoxygen said:

Fairy tales written to keep the rabble in check.

---

Well, that certainly may be a credible reading, so as you put it; but as far as I can see, your opinion might easily contradict itself. While I can't be sure of where you are coming from, I also can't see how it would be necessary or even productive to strike at the text itself in this manner, at least from any modern standpoint. By calling the myth a fairy-tale, (where fiction would suffice) you contradict what you may offer in criticism, strictly speaking, what is only worth hearing in respect to the text.

---

daytripper23 said:

Well then, what exactly is a fairy-tale?

Why do you insist on calling it this?

---

daytripper23 said:

I did not presume you were an atheist, though I can see how it may have appeared this way.

If you will look, those remarks of atheism were not actually directed towards you. But my cursory remarks of atheism may very well apply, as your argument does take a certain character when you insist on calling the bible a "fairy tale".

---

Quote:

"Seek truth, do not seek that which was written to explain what could not be at the time."

---

daytripper23 said:

Ok point taken; although it sounds a bit like a commandment the way you put it.

Here is what I think: both you and Drakion raise the imaginary barrier between present and past discourse that I mentioned in my first post.

ExplosiveOxygen said

Quote:

"Seek truth, do not seek that which was written to explain what could not be at the time."

---

Drakion Said
"This myth is only relevant to modern ethics in seeing how are morals have changed. We come from a time where slavery was deemed appropriate and women seen as nothing more than cattle. We (at least some) can reflect on how wrong it is to make war based on religious views. We can see how far mankind has come in a few thousand years, and take pride in what we have achieved. We can look ahead with a renewed sense of vigor for tomorrow, and shed the chains of yesterday. "

As you both put it, the context of "forbidden fruit" is not to be interpreted either this way or that, but should be considered irrelevant. Right? This sounds familiar to me as it concerns certain issues. Not coincidentally, I am speaking of the present issue of our currently "forbidden fruits": There is no ground to stand on, and those who would like to raise even the possibility for equal grounds of discourse are deemed irrelevant (jailed or considered insane).

Things have have not changed substantially, even if they have changed otherwise.

---

Quote:

stop acting like we are telling you what to believe.

---

Quote:

Here is what I think: both you and Drakion raise the imaginary barrier between present and past discourse that I mentioned in my first post.

ExplosiveOxygen said

Quote:

"Seek truth, do not seek that which was written to explain what could not be at the time."

---

Drakion Said
"This myth is only relevant to modern ethics in seeing how are morals have changed. We come from a time where slavery was deemed appropriate and women seen as nothing more than cattle. We (at least some) can reflect on how wrong it is to make war based on religious views. We can see how far mankind has come in a few thousand years, and take pride in what we have achieved. We can look ahead with a renewed sense of vigor for tomorrow, and shed the chains of yesterday. "

As you both put it, the context of "forbidden fruit" is not to be interpreted either this way or that, but should be considered irrelevant. Right? This sounds familiar to me as it concerns certain issues. Not coincidentally, I am speaking of the present issue of our currently "forbidden fruits": There is no ground to stand on, and those who would like to raise even the possibility for equal grounds of discourse are deemed irrelevant (jailed or considered insane).

Things have have not changed substantially, even if they have changed otherwise.

---