If you could live forever....would you? (1 Viewer)

[Brennan77]

Correct me if i'm misunderstanding what you're saying--but I don't think I would classify these as "supernatural" just because there is no ordered way to quantify them and because they are intricately subjective. IMO they are all (the ability to discern what is true and right, to find beauty, and to be good) human traits which lie neatly within the scope of known human characteristics.

People could argue with good reason that you can't quantify "love", but there have been many studies with subjects having regions of their brain scanned using an fMRI that can point to the areas of the brain activated when an image of a certain person appears. I think what i'm getting at is that I personally believe "love" and "hope" and other human social constructs are simply that, even though they may not be able to be quantifiable to a "T".

That being said, I don't think realizing that love isn't something that transcends the natural makes my own wish to love and be loved any less ambitious or meaningful. Also, the ability to quantify it in my mind doesn't reduce it to material or make it any less important or wonderful. JMO.

Good post. I would ask you just what it is we are discerning. That's language that suggests we are looking at an outside truth/phenomena that ought to be recognized and interacted with. I agree that it is a uniquely human/personal trait to be able to discern these things. And it is that which separates us from non personal forms of consciousness, such as an animal. And I agree to an extent and even suggested earlier that our ability to discern, recognize, and participate in these things are closely tied to and facilitated by our physical makeup.

What if our brains are the physical means in which we find ourselves capable of interacting with notions of truth, beauty and goodness? And are not in fact the source and creator of truth, beauty, and goodness? If we do, through our own mind, in effect 'create' what is truth, then there is no absolute truth and everyone lives according to their own personal created universe. Everything is then relative and notions that some things might be objectively truthful go out the window. And thus the basic idea of truth or goodness become illusory altogether. But we don't live out lives that way and that's a good thing.

 

[Heathen Saint]

Good post. I would ask you just what it is we are discerning. That's language that suggests we are looking at an outside truth/phenomena that ought to be recognized and interacted with.

I suppose by truth i'm just speaking about what we through our lives/personal experience determine what is real and logical (true) as well as what is reasonable and moral ("right"). To me, the conversation starts to delve into "universal truths/morals" and do they exist outside of the human species. My opinion is that they don't, and that our operational definition of reason, or what is real and "true" and perception of morality has and probably will continue to evolve, though by how much is anyone's guess.

I agree that it is a uniquely human/personal trait to be able to discern these things. And it is that which separates us from non personal forms of consciousness, such as an animal. And I agree to an extent and even suggested earlier that our ability to discern, recognize, and participate in these things are closely tied to and facilitated by our physical makeup.

What if our brains are the physical means in which we find ourselves capable of interacting with notions of truth, beauty and goodness? And are not in fact the source and creator of truth, beauty, and goodness? If we do, through our own mind, in effect 'create' what is truth, then there is no absolute truth and everyone lives according to their own personal created universe. Everything is then relative and notions that some things might be objectively truthful go out the window. And thus the basic idea of truth or goodness become illusory altogether. But we don't live out lives that way and that's a good thing.

I think that's what I'm getting at. I don't see there being any universal, set in stone law of universal right and wrong (if that's more or less what can be covered under the envelope of "universal truths").

Maybe i'm completely wrong to have this attitude, but I think these "truths" that we convince ourselves exist ARE in fact illusions in some form--albeit ones that are very beneficial to our species as you stated. Very much akin to me how we so often describe ourselves as having complete "free will". While this may be more or less true in layman's terms, there are so many factors that go into our conscious state that imply otherwise, that, at the end of the day would suggest you do not in fact have complete free will. But why hone in on this mindset? It is much better to embrace what may be characterized as an illusion of sorts and live with the sense that you have unrestrained free will than to live based on what is to a T factual in a technical/biological sense.

I guess to come back from the rabbit trail I went on, maybe universal truths do not exist but living as if they do exist would seem to be more beneficial, and I think most humans live by this mindset anyway. The trouble with everyone's "universal truths" or what they see as ultimate, unchanged rights/wrongs is that they are not all equal if you consider "truths" to include those of a moral treatment of other human beings sense.

 

[pmiceli]

I'd have to disagree. Your comments are reflecting a belief in strict empiricism or "scientism". It's a philosophy of knowing that cannot stand up to its own standard. In other words, you cannot prove through empirical means that the only things that are true and knowable are those that can be proven through empirical means. That's a philosophical statement, which can only be argued through...non empirical means.



The definition of the supernatural in the way that I mean it is simply that which is ordered to reality beyond the observable, empirical, universe. And I think we encounter and interact with those sorts of truths every day. Simple, yet ultimately mysterious concepts, like truth, beauty, and goodness, by their very nature transcend empirical measure. They are relative to persons, who possess a unique type of consciousness that is also a free will. If one were to reduce this reality to the material, then you'd have to to also conclude that said reality is ultimately an illusion. That's not an entirely illogical conclusion, though I think it is unlikely and not in keeping with our human experience. And I do think it trends towards an attitude of despair. I prefer to be more hopeful about the meaning and truth of our lives.

Everything you talk about is natural. Even "god" would have an explainable origin. We may not be able to explain what we observe but that does not make it "supernatural" just beyond our present ability to explain.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brennan77]

Everything you talk about is natural. Even "god" would have an explainable origin. We may not be able to explain what we observe but that does not make it "supernatural" just beyond our present ability to explain.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your understanding of what the classical theistic definition of God is incorrect then. God would not have an 'explainable origin'. He would have no origin at all. He would be the foundational reality from which all other being flows. The idea that the supernatural is just what we cannot explain misses the point altogether. It's not about inexplicable contingent things. It's about truths and reality that are not contingent at all.

I apologize to the OP, however. I know you wanted to keep this sort of discussion from the topic. But I'm not sure you can discuss the subject without bumping into the nature of that which makes us persons and whether than can be reduced to material means.