On Hell and Forgiveness

[Angrboda]

@Roadrunner:

I added the following paragraph after you read and replied to my earlier post. I think it adds some context and explains where I'm coming from, so I'll repeat it for your benefit.

Ultimately, as I said to Neo in the thread on delusion and religion, number, and the concepts it is dependent on, are a mystery. I can suggest that number, being an example of reasoning using parts and wholes, only exists in so far as we make arbitrary identity judgements, about what is a part of what, and what is a whole. But our intuitions tend to marshall against us, at the very least, and it's not entirely clear that number is subjective in its entirety, that it doesn't have an independent, objective substance of some sort. Yet when we go the other direction, and assert that number, and part/whole distinctions are objective, we run into problems in that direction as well, problems which seem equally intractable. So we're left with a mystery, I think, and to declare that number, or parts & wholes, is definitely objective, is, to my mind, to embrace an opinion that is not in any sense fully justified. At minimum, if you can't prove that number is objective, that leaves the door open, no matter how slightly, that number is subjective, as it must be one or the other, it can't be both. So, QED, as it were, I think I've shown that number and parts & wholes being a product of mind is not a view that is as far fetched as Neo and Steve made it sound. If you disagree, please explain why.

---

---

Let me put it this way. If everyone agrees what it is to be the number 4, what is it, precisely?

"Everyone agreeing" is not what is happening when we consider the concept of 4 objects. We discover the concept. The word we use is irrelevant.

Given your views on the subject, I'd like to solicit your response to the questions and arguments I've presented to Roadrunner.

Here and here.