RE: Literal and Not Literal
August 28, 2019 at 4:44 pm
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2019 at 4:46 pm by Acrobat.)
(August 28, 2019 at 2:47 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: 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.
