Heartland

Red Orc wrote:Sorry Obviousman - you made some points which are definitely worth coming back on - haven't got my medieval philosophy books to hand, but I think it was decided that god is unknowable precisely as a result of Thomas Aquinas (or was it Thomas a Kempis? I can never remember)

Red Orc wrote:As to humans being incapable of acting decently, I really hope you're wrong. I BELIEVE that you're wrong, but I can't claim it's an unassailable fact - I just can't begin to think we're all horrible because I can't see how that could help me to go on living. If humanity really is that bad, it would probably be for the best if we all just died now - but as I say, I think it's obvious that people are nice, and it's situations which make them behave badly. If people are s**t, I really do think it's got more to do with ignorance and fear than inherent badness. It's also a bit to close to the doctrine of original sin for my non-religious tastes... (this is by way of being the light-hearted bit). I find Winnie the Pooh a great comfort sometimes...

Wikipedia on St Anselm wrote:Anselm presents the ontological argument as part of a prayer directed to God. He starts with a definition of God, or a necessary assumption about the nature of God, or perhaps both.
"Now we believe that [the Lord] is something than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Then Anselm asks: does God exist?
"Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not?"
To answer this, first he tries to show that God exists 'in the understanding':
"But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying – something than which nothing greater can be imagined – understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is."
Anselm goes on to justify his assumption, using the analogy of a painter:
"For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
"Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding."
Now Anselm introduces another assumption:
"And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."
(For example, most people would prefer a real £100 rather than an imaginary £100.)
"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."
Anselm has thus found a contradiction, and from that contradiction, he draws his conclusion:
"There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."

markfiend wrote:Is it Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine that came up with the ontological proof of the existence of God?

Red Orc wrote:Ah, sorry, can't agree.

I think Marx wasn't a utopian at all, what I've read shows him painting an absolutely accurate picture of the horror of society as was and as we know it too, with a nice line in hope for the future in the shape of the one group in society who have the power to REALLY change things, not just swap one set of leaders for another...

But then again this might not be the place for long arguments on the meaning of history etc...

markfiend wrote:It's too late on a Friday for trying to think

Red Orc wrote:Ah, Obviousman, it's a pleasure to debate with a philosopher, it really is.

Red Orc wrote:I too love the arguments, but let's face it, we must have bored about 90 people by now. As I said, maybe this isn't the place, implying that there might be some other forum/thread where we could argue Marxism until
1 - the revolution comes home, or
2 - we all die hideously in the wars and environmental and social destruction that capitalism rains down on us.

You may not accept that that's the choices, but that's what I believe at any rate. As Rosa Luxemburg said - socialism or barbarism. We've already got the barbarism.

PS is this the 'god' thread or the politics thread I was discussing with you on earlier??!?

Red Orc wrote:2 - I didn't mean that you were a philosophy graduate, just that you seem to 'love debate/wisdom' (ie 'philo-sophia') - economics is probably a good place to start with Marx, if you can get your head round it, because I'm buggered if I understand it. It's more the political application of his investigations that interests me.

3 - you're quite right, of course - we aren't forcing anyone to read this.

4 - 'message history'?? totally new at this meself, don't know how it all works.

canon docre wrote:Holy s**t!

Black Alice wrote:I liked it last week when radio 4 reported that he was hoping to open a dialogue with other faiths, particularly the jewish and islamic faith, and then they said he spoke in Latin - way to open a dialogue!!

dead stars wrote:I believe in God. But I keep God and religion separated.