[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Anomalocaris]

Does the fact that language can not express the alleged infinity of god be traceable to god not being any sort of coherent or internally consistent concept able to withstand such minimal scrutiny as might be brought to bear when a fluffy notion in the head had to be articulated?

Infinity in this context seems to be a code word for "mind fully accustomed to bullshit and will not accept limits on its ability to make shit up, trying to protect certain treasured bullshit with yet more bullshit excuses, if not threats against scrutiny".

Language is a recent invention in our evolutionary history. Prior to language we just experience, observed, recognized reality, without being able to articulate it.

Do you believe that all of reality can be reduced into a series of propositions?  

It also seems to me there are things that appear simple yet undefinable, Good in a moral sense, seems to fall into that category.

I can easily say he’s a good person, what he did was good, kindness is good, reducing suffering is good, honesty is good, etc...  What’s  meant by the term good, is the same in all these different instances, that what I’m communicating is pretty simple, that I don’t really have to worry about someone not understanding me, unless they’re deliberately being obtuse.  

Yet Good appears quite difficult to define, so much so that even atheists philosophers like G.E. Moore, recognize it as simple but indefinable.

Moral Good is one those terms we find an equivalency across cultures, yet we have no real definition of it meaning, at least in relationship to its use.

It’s far easier for us to recognize a variety of things that are morally good, yet difficult to articulate the meaning of good.

I think the notion that language must be an incremental analogue of subjective experience is deeply flawed.   It is an analytical descriptor of subjective experience.   The description enables scrutiny to be brought to bear upon the experience, and enables the experience to assessed for any possibly correlation with any thing that is not purely a fabrication of the mind.    

You should not conflate too lazy to set out, no time to set out, no immediate need to set out, or the desire to avoid bursting a happy hazy illusory bubble by setting out, with impossibility of setting out as a series of propositions.

If it is real in the any manner that is not purely an levitated assertion without correlation to anything outside of the mind,  then proposition can be formulated to encompass it.


Moral good as perhaps you mean it seems to be an infantile and uncritical concept that is completely intellectually bankrupt.   The so called inability to define it is really an unwillingness to define it because a subconscious awareness that efforts to define it would expose its contradictions and bankruptcy.