Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter
more avoidance. ontology - that means being right? well god does not exist. presence/absence. again - god does not exist and heaven and hell are not there. so i'll take absence. epistemology - yes, we can know that heaven, hell, gods existence and the resurrection of jesus are all not real and didn't happen/don't exist. logic - the very thing you have to abandon for your myths to work.
you want to avoid your argument coming down to "you can't prove these things aren't there so how do you know they aren't for sure?" but you can't really do it. no matter what words you use.
you are ultimately trying to avoid having to impose a bizarre and primitive creation myth and tribal back story onto someone else. that's all it is.
i mean, are you really trying to tell me since i'm a human (not god) i can't know for sure how things are out there in themselves and so maybe there really is a central operating room with god himself at the helm. lol.
as for your question. i'm not sure how to answer that. the question implies language has some relation to reality. do you want me to describe it? what description could suffice for reality other than reality?
telling that you said; "what is it, to you, please?"
i have no "personal" or individualised interpretation of reality. nor do i have a self that could accomplish this task.
|
This isn't avoidance. You don't believe in God - fine. You believe in [a] reality - fine. But you're refusing to articulate your understanding of ontology, metaphysics. Do you have to? No. Except you've aggressively asked me to articulate mine, and now refusing to answer the same questions back.
You don't have to have an answer but you're assuming a hostile approach to my admittedly ill-defined answer to the same questions about the nature of existence. You say absence, but what absence? A total absence? Social Darwinism? Buddhism? Nihilism? Sadism?
You have no 'personal' reality - of course. Because you believe in a fundamental reality which is apprehendible by everyone, one which is self-evident - and in its self-evidence, it refutes articulation. So anyone who tries to apprehend it, anyone who acts within language, is only acting within language. Postmodernism 101.
I'm not saying you can't prove things. I'm saying something far more absurd, to your view, than that - I'm saying that the very nature of proof is fucked. You take God away from my view and I'm an
absolute nihilist. You're just angry.