RE: Ontological Disproof of God
August 25, 2018 at 10:17 pm
(This post was last modified: August 25, 2018 at 10:17 pm by negatio.)
Quote:What fundamental religious beliefs are you destructing?Jehovah's mistaken notion that he could efficiently/successfully reign as God, over men,by positing a series of laws, which, he mistakenly thought, would function either to determine man's conduct directly, via the word,or, move men to determine themselves, by law, to act in accordance with law. When, in fact, human conduct does not originate on the basis of given states of affairs like a language of law.
(August 25, 2018 at 9:29 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(August 25, 2018 at 9:05 pm)negatio Wrote: No, you make my position clear to yourself by yourself. I cannot possibly do it for you. I have given my position and, then totally rewritten part of it for the members. I am writing as clearly as I, as a radically limited human being, at this moment, can. What I say, even at what appears to be the thickest, hardest, most unbearable juncture thereof, is insightfully crystal clear; totally translucent; ---- some of it is even absolutely original thinking. I have studied radically intently as an ideaologist...I successful wrote my way to a degree in philosophy with straight A's for teachers who stressed and demanded, clarity. I can do clarity, I do clarity. Now, this is not college. What I am playing here is hardball. I am undertaking a philosophical/theoretical destruction of our most fundamental religious beliefs, and, of the legalistic foundations of America itself. My position is cast in a manner fit to survive the most possible insightful attack against it which might happen to be brought against it for centuries to come; for there will be those, like Jormungander,who can,and will,undertake to defeat it. The OP is written to withstand the slings and arrows of future bright minds, for as long as possible. The OP is enunciating a radical vision for the future; based upon the most difficult and powerful thought of the past, as exampled by Spinoza; Hegel; Sartre...it is not my thought that is, for the most part, is being presented here; it is Sprioza's; Hegel's; Sartre's, I am standing on their shoulders, and, I have, thanks to the infinite riches contained in Spinoza's dictum, invented at least one absolutely new theoretical construct of my own, i.e., jurisprudential illusion; --- the OP is playing absolute hardball within an absolutely tyrannical sociosphere, wherein men are constantly attempting to enslave others, by "law",
which law is totally and radically an overbearing loose cannon which requires resistance sufficient to tie it down. Jurisprudence needs a goddamn good fucking swift theoretical kick in the balls, for it is a theoretically and ontologically unintelligible series of practices within the sociosphere, which are suffocating and destroying the originally intended reign of human absolute ontological freedom,in certain regions of human conduct, which original Americans insisted upon having in unmolested fashion. I am playing theoretical hardball with what is the actual nonsense practiced by American jurisprudence, for the sake of getting it and its fucking nonsense off our backs; it,
jurisprudence, is capable, only, of, on and on and on, doing prohibitive law against human beings, which is making us sick, because it has no real understanding of what a human being is. Thank you brewer. Negatio.
bold mine
What fundamental religious beliefs are you destructing?
If you want your position to survive for centuries to come do you plan on publishing and/or peer review?
How are we enslaved by law, by not allowing absolute free will? I think laws are required in a structured society. My position is that your free will stops where my nose starts and that laws prevent that very well.
Is one of your issues with the way the american law/judicial system applied and practiced? How is it radically overbearing? I have seemed to thrive within that system very well.
