The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Didn't you list the two (among Plato, Hegel and others) as part of a number of philosophers throughout time who represent a coherent view of the world? Can't think of any decent search criteria for it now, will have a shufti for the exact quote later.phildwyer said:
Edit: here we go
phildwyer said:
Do apologise, I have a long memory for stuff like this
In Bloom said:Didn't you list the two (among Plato, Hegel and others) as part of a number of philosophers throughout time who represent a coherent view of the world? Can't think of any decent search criteria for it now, will have a shufti for the exact quote later.
Edit: here we go
Do apologise, I have a long memory for stuff like this
Blimey, you do, too. But all I'm doing there is *asserting* this similarity, I'm not *demonstrating* it, although I do that elsewhere. My argument focuses on the indulgence controversy, which sparked the reformation: Luther saw indulgences as fetishized certificates denoting a determinate amount of penitential human labour--in other words, as a form of paper money. Marx did indeed inherit this and other Luthran concepts, via Hegel. Its quite a nifty little argument if I do say so myself.
In Bloom said:
You're right, of course, but Hegel--who was deeply trained in Lutheran theology--provides a bridge between Luther and Marx. That's sort of the basis for my argument on this thread so far. I'd love to tell you more, for the gap between theology and philosophy is not nearly as wide as you imagine, but I really have to run. A bientot.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Autographs? In your dreams.
*Makes another note about phil's delusions of grandeur
To see how you deal with the mess your pompous, pretentious and ultimately useless ego has created. You're good at citing other people's ideas, but not very successful at presenting any sound ones of your own. And we can all recognise the mothods you employ to disguise this.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Ou est Dieu? 
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Fruitloop said:
Vraiment? Quel surprise.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Preferably kneeling, head bowed, having lit a votive candle...phildwyer said:
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Une expression très evocatrice, que je ne connaissais pas jusqu'ici!Fruitloop said:On est foutu, je pense. C'est clair que Phil péte plus haut que son cul.
phildwyer said:
(a) If it is true that financial value is simply "more powerful" than any other idea, without any other distinguishing factors, then it is a difference of magnitude, and not type. 'Financial Value' is like an idea, but more so. Is there a threshold of power at which an 'idea' becomes a 'spirit' once it crosses it?
(b) All ideas give rise to others, for example the idea of 'Crazy Frog' gives rise to the idea 'I fookin' hate Crazy Frog'. Unless financial value was the first idea which gave rise to all others, this does not distinguish it from other ideas.
(c) Human activity considered as a whole is a useful model to use at times, but not an accurate one. Human activity as a whole is a sum of a very large number of discrete elements, it is not an actual 'thing' in itself. Could you elaborate on this 'essence' you mentioned? For instance, does 'idea'+'essence'='spirit', then? If Financial Value is the only *idea* with 'essence', does any other, non-idea, thing have essence?
Doomsy said:
(a) Yes, there is such a threshold, as with anything. It is a logical law that at a certain point a quantitative difference becomes qualitative.
(b) Value doesn't have to be the *first* idea, temporally speaking, but it has to be the "base" on which other ideas are *currently* built. This is just ordinary economic determinism.
(c) Any thing has essence, or it wouldn't be a thing. But the essence of value is difference from anything else, because it is human activity considered as a whole. This is Marx's labour theory of value, which he derives from Feuerbach's concept of God.
Anyway, I'm still trying to come up with a title. Well actually, I've got the title, but I need a subtitle. The publisher says it must contain the word "religion." Any more ideas?
Oh yeah, I forgot. The most significant factor that differentiates financial value from all other ideas, and makes it unlike an idea, is its ability to *reproduce,* independently of human intervention. The only other non-living thing that can do this is linguistic significance and, as I shall demonstrate in the second half of my proof, language and financial value turn out to be two manifestations of the same thing.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
then where would yr god be, without people to debate his/her existence & worship?phildwyer said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Alex B said:
Fruitloop said:
I see what you mean. You don't even have to take away the humans, of course: if humans simply agreed--as they did until three hundred years ago--that value does *not* reproduce, then it wouldn't. In the usury debates of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, it was always argued that to imagine that value does reproduce was to do the work of Satan. But what I mean is that humans don't have to *do* anything for value to reproduce, they don't have to intervene in any way. Usury is the *autonomous* reproduction of value. Leaving the complex question of language aside for the moment, can we agree that no other idea reproduces in the way that financial value does? Can we agree that this is a quality of value that distinguishes it from all other ideas?
I don't understand what you mean by 'they don't have to do anything'. Usury is an activity, like golf. In the absence of this human activity, there is no reproduction of value - thus the statement that value can reproduce independently of human activity is obscure at best, if not obviously incorrect.
- Status
Similar threads
