Does Advaita or the Trinity hold up better to scrutiny as a model for divine ontology?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Does Advaita or the Trinity hold up better to scrutiny as a model for divine ontology?
What are you talking about?
The frick are you on about?
Btw, this is a question for the Shankara posters and well learned Christian scholars, and not morons stumbling into the boundaries of comparative religious philosophy.
Literature board
Advaita surely does better at this then Trinity as it goes deep into the role of consciousness itself. Trinity's main hold is some flawed logic + book + faith. While Advaita's hold is conscious experience + logic + book + faith. Its a more complete picture.
However its still stupid vs Buddhist model since that's a more naturalistic model and doesn't require divine.
I'm not sure if you're presenting the Trinity fairly, because it's actually more rationally consistent than it's usually presented. It doesn't even strictly require revelation from scripture to hold up.
The nastika branch of Buddhism is dumb. Nastika doesn't have an answer to, nor does it have an answer for the creation of things.
>nor does it have an answer for
nor does it attempt to have an answer for
>Nastika doesn't have an answer to, nor does it have an answer for the creation of things
Thats because creation isn't a problem for Buddhist as thats not the main problem. Where as creation is a central story necessary for the divinity ideologies, for without which, the whole system falls apart.
But even so, its not as if Buddhist school dont give hints on what life is ontologically, we have the infamous sunyata/pratiyasamutpada basis for which could be used to explain it if necessary.
>nor does it have an answer for the creation of things.
yesit does, thing being "created" is an illusion of your mind, nothing is created from nothing or destroyed into nothingness, everything is in a state of becoming, read Hume if you want a more philosophical western friendly version of the same thing, causation is created by the subject, not the object
Bump, help me Shankara poster(s)
Ontology goes beyond theology, so it seems the question itself is flawed
this, the moment you want to do ontology, theological thinking becomes an hidrance, the whole advaita model is full of ontological contradictions and don't address all the main problems that ontology is designed to resolve, mainly the problem of multiple substances vs one subtsance:brahma is the oly substance but maya is sometihng different from brahma, making it another substance, not to mention the problems with maya being being and non-being, or the problem of causation
>maya is sometihng different from brahma, making it another substance, not to mention the problems with maya being being and non-being
shankara poster already addressed this in the thread yesterday. it's fully resolvable. now gtfo out of my thread, unless someone smarter can substantiate this nonbeing claim
quiet troony
It's the other way around, theology goes beyond ontology.
False, because ontology refers to any sort of presence or weight, whereas theology is just one field of many. By its very nature if you can mention it (theology, a table, this post), it is wholly subsumed by ontology.
Theology is fine, I'm okay with god(s), but they should know their place. If you really want to get metaphysics you should look to Elea.
Theology-proper transcends being, just as Plotinus's One transcends the category of being qua being. Brahman is beyond Being (which qua being is known as Ishvara), therefore theology transcends being. "Presence" is meaningless at a state beyond Being, the Infinite.
> because ontology refers to any sort of presence or weight
Brahman is beyond any presence or weight. This is the distinction between the manifested and unmanifested orders, the latter being superior and prior to the former because it is the principle thereof. The former is the domain of being (qua being = Ishvara, everything not Ishvara and not unmanifested receiving its being therefrom). Brahman is a domain beyond any specific conditioning by the principle of Being or its opposite non-Being, and provides these with their essence (ie Brahman "is" the "essence" which gives rise to the possibility of any presence at all).
>By its very nature if you can mention it (theology, a table, this post), it is wholly subsumed by ontology.
Incorrect. Ontology is subsumed by theology (not just any theology, but theology properly speaking, the study of the highest genus in Aristotle's language--you might recall Aristotle considered "theology" the aim of metaphysics).
>If you really want to get metaphysics you should look to Elea.
Already subsumed by Shankara and non-dualism, even by Plotinus.
"Brahman is beyond Being" - the operative word being "IS". That affirmative term "is", denotes the presence or weight that I mentioned, and is ABSOLUTELY omnipresent and inescapable.
Hence the absolute and undeniable supremacy and all-subsuming nature of ontology. You cannot escape this by saying "well, there's a "Being" and a "Beyond-Being""; that is just a semantic game and attempt to look away from the truth.
You still affirm both categories - there is a thread that runs through them both and unifies them. No part of that picture is outside affirmation/presence; it is all consumed by the master field of metaphysics/ontology.
Even the gods must accept their position. Theologians are nice but Eleatic Philosophy puts them in their place. Being is supreme and beyond your feeble teachings. To claim to go "beyond being", to literally posit that "which is not", this is contradictory nonsense that devolves into gibberish.
That's why I quoted it, because language actually fails here. Using "is" is erroneous and is necessitated by the conventional use of language. Neither is nor is not actually applies to Brahman, and by asserting that language is the be-all here you are just falling back into linguistically conditioned metaphysics, the worst kind which recent Western philosophy seems to have spent so much time criticizing.
>You still affirm both categories - there is a thread that runs through them both and unifies them
They are not the highest categories, therefore theology transcends ontology because theology-proper is related to a higher genus than ontology.
>Even the gods must accept their position
The gods partake of Being, they are therefore below ontology. Brahman is not a god or pantheon, however, and therefore is not even applicable to your statement.
>o claim to go "beyond being", to literally posit that "which is not", this is contradictory nonsense that devolves into gibberish.
No, it's only gibberish if your understanding of reality is limited to linguistically derived metaphysics.
Right, your language fails because you are talking gibberish/contradicting yourself. Whatever you reference, whatever ounce of meaning you could offer, by definition it is subsumed by Being - the "is", ontological presence or weight. This metaphysical principle is omnipresent and necessary.
You have not said anything beyond that metaphysical context, by definition and on pain of the very claim being gibberish.
Hence metaphysics remains absolutely supreme, Being is omnipresent, and you have departed from the path of truth. Unless you can square that circle, you've plainly devolved into spouting gibberish and your philosophical project has failed.
False - there is only Being. This is a necessary and omnipresent principle of metaphysics that subsumes all. You cannot offer anything independent of Being, by definition.
Being does not have a contrary, that is a colossal and irredeemable error. Right there, that is the death of your philosophical project.
Only Eleatics know how to handle negation. They interpret "is not" as "is other than" - affirmation flows across both sides of any comparison. Distinction is wholly subsumed by Being, a point we can also explore via analogy to a painting or other subsuming entities.
The improper handling of negation leads to the total failure of the philosophical project. This is why Platonism/NeoPlatonism is wrong, for example.
>accuses others of gibberish
>anyway as I was saying Being being being is Being being
>doesn't understand the analogy of a painting
>doesn't realise that distinct things are subsumed by a broader context, thus making it all unified, interrelated, and complete.
ngmi
>analogies
Can't you just prove the thing? Or is this Being some schizo delusion after all?
Prove it? That's the easy part, the fact we're having this conversation shows that there "is". In the absence of any alternative or opposition to "is", we're done.
The painting analogy is to help people like you recognise your errors and wrap your head around the truth.
>switching from "Being" to "is"
much weaker claim there isn't it?
>Right, your language fails because you are talking gibberish/contradicting yourself.
My language isn't failing, yours is. The most basic connective unit of language is the copula, therefore language, by its very "design", can never go beyond whatever category these copula represent - being, "is" or "is not." The fact that language is limited to this extent does not mean reality is.
>False - there is only Being.
We're not talking about what is or is not (for some reason you think saying "there is being" is meaningful), we're speaking of two genus which are independent of each other. If there are two genus of equal height then neither one is the "highest genus." Non-being does not partake of being, therefore non-Being is not subsumed by Being, and vice versa.
>Being does not have a contrary,
It obviously does, any positive must have a contrary. Being, a positive, therefore must have a contrary, a negative. This is the case because any determination is by its very determinacy subject to the possibility of a contrary determination, if it were not, then it would not a be a determination (a "positive"). Therefore all determinations, all "being", implies a contrary which is wholly opposite, neither one being subsumed by the other.
>They interpret "is not" as "is other than"
Is not can be interpreted in more than one way depending on the context. Metaphysically, or "ontologically", it is simply absence of determination.
Re: Language, you speak out of both sides of your mouth. You acknowledge you have this limitation of meaning that you can express, but then you pretend you are signifying some additional meaning that might be grasped.
When you say reality could be more than that, you aren't saying anything beyond contradictory nonsense. For if you have signified or referenced a "more than that", then language touched upon it. If you haven't, then you haven't put forward anything new to consider; you haven't "gone beyond being" or suggested that this is possible, rather you contradicted yourself and provided a meaningless word salad.
Re: two genera which are independent of each other, this sounds like a classic aristotelean error, like when he says "being is said in my ways". Very funny, here's the retort: there is a way in which being is one. Similarly, if there are two genera, they are unified by the over-arching term "genus".
You inter-relate them, so they are are plainly within one context. Hence, you are just trying to avoid the practice of metaphysics by taking "is" and then breaking it into two pieces, "is" and "is not", and then never again opening your eyes to their unity.
Re: interpretation, you are yet to provide any coherent reading of "is not", beyond the aforementioned ploy of dividing Being into 2 sub-categories and then ignoring the unifying context.
No.
Language anon is right; you are just assuming the way we describe things implies they're actually there and/or the way we describe them. Since you like analogies, when I see a "tree" it's usually a pretty symbol of "nature" in my otherwise civilized environment; to a bird it is a place to build a nest or take a break between flights; for a squirrel it is somewhere to escape from larger carnivores; and to certain insects it is a host to infest. "Is" is exactly this same idea of how a subject is related to a predicate/object/thing, and there is no subject that cannot become the former. Being is not some constant thing but a premise for reaching desired outcomes. Whatever is, is not limited to what we say it is. You'd die before you could determine every possible relationship necessary for something to be everything it is.
No, you miss the point, at this broad level it's not about whether our description of a particular thing accurately describes that thing. Rather, this scope refers to affirmation or presence per se - there's no alternative to the affirmation or "isness", there's no question of incorrect description yet. That comes later, with particulars subsumed by this context.
So the whole bit about trees, nature, etc, is simply irrelevant right now. The nature of that topic will be defined by the broader metaphysical context, but first we have to appreciate that context and consider its ramifications.
Ohhhh so you are referencing something, you can talk about "it", it's just difficult. Glad you climbed out of that linguistic hole, but you're still missing the point - whatever you are describing or saying, you are necessarily affirming it. Affirmation is inescapable, this affirmative presence or weight is absolutely omnipresent.
Re: positing an opposite to Being, you are doing exactly what I said, thank you for demonstrating it again. You are semi-aware of the omnipresence of ontology, which you confess to a degree by positing "Brahman", but then you divvy up "what-is" into the sub-categories of "Being" and "non-Being".
This is exactly what I described, and is a very typical misstep for Aristoteleans/Neoplatonists/Thomists and other like-minded sorts. What you have to do is consider the omnipresence of what you seem to be calling "Brahman" and its ramifications; once you realise the potential/actual system is broken and that an eternalist, complete model of reality is absolutely necessary, your entire worldview will be shattered.
Anyway, I do see you made one attempt at defining "is not" - you said it IS the "contrary, privation" of Being. Yet Being refers to the ontological, omnipresent principle, so what could this even mean? You're saying "is-not is", which is plainly contradictory. You try to make it an alternative option, to give the term some inherent meaning or significance, while at the same time denying it has such content. You can literally just delete the words without loss to the sentence if it has no significance or meaning. Whereupon we are left with my point - omnipresent isness, which you appear to partially recognise in your "Brahman".
The only path to understanding "is not" is therefore the one I offered - "other than". It gives the words some meaning or significance. They now play a coherent role in whatever sentence is typed out.
As an aside, I sense strong overtones of Neoplatonists and Christians struggling to define "evil"; sometimes they'll say it is the absence of good. Of course, then they need to say what it actually is, not what it is not, for the only definition of substance we have for "what is not" is "other than". And so the game plays out to their downfall and eventually confession of error.
>whatever you are describing or saying, you are necessarily affirming it
I don't see how.
>You are semi-aware of the omnipresence of ontology
It seems to me conversely that you are only semi-aware of the transcendence of theology.
>You're saying "is-not is"
I'm not, I've explicitly stated multiple times that being and non-being are contrary genus, and therefore being and non-being cannot be said of each other. You're not responding to anything I've said. All you're doing is conflating being with non-being and claiming that a thing is its own opposite. It's irrational and you don't really have anything to say for it.
>The only path to understanding "is not" is therefore the one I offered - "other than"
I still fail to see why, you have no provided any necessity and you have not dealt with the question of determinacy. "Other than" is a method of differentiation, it only takes non-being and being into account accidentally, not qua non-being or qua being; it has nothing to do with the determinacy of being qua being. If you claim to be doing metaphysics or ontology, then you have to deal with being qua being, not being qua differentia (which is what your "other than" hypothesis comes down to).
Re: necessarily affirming things: You mentioned Neoplatonism somewhere along the line, so please see Plato's dialogue Sophist for an explanation you might accept. Essentially, if you are describing something, you inherently affirm some content. For example, if you say there is a god, the term "god" has some meaning or significance, you've said it's singular, presumably you're positing it has a certain status or location, etc. My point is true to the full extent your words have meaning.
>"I've explicitly stated multiple times that being and non-being are contrary genus..."
I have responded in detail. What you described above is the misstep I predicted - taking the metaphysical sense of Being and then divvying it up into two categories "being" and "non-being". Then avoiding the metaphysical conversation.
As far as I can tell, you refer to the metaphysical sense of Being by the term "Brahman". I am speaking of Brahman, which subsumes your sub-categories. Your refusal to interpret my words at that level is the issue. I'm not making any improper conflation when I point out that two genera are unified by the common thread of "being a genus". You put them in a common context and relate them, I would discuss that context. The ramifications are enormous.
Re: your final paragraph, it too is a product of the above. If you read my posts where I describe Being in the metaphysical sense, what you've said here misrepresents me and is unresponsive. Distinction is subsumed by broader Being, hence the painting analogy and other explanations.
>Essentially, if you are describing something, you inherently affirm some content.
You only think this because of your linguistic-metaphysical inference of subject and predicate, which is arbitrary. If there is no subject, then a description does not affirm anything or deny anything. Language as we know it only works by taking subjects and predicates, due to its inherent limitations.
>I have responded in detail.
No you haven't, you've been repeatedly saying that I'm predicating being of non-being, which is exactly the opposite of what I am conveying, which is that this predication is impossible. Non-being and being stand alone without any copula, "is" or "is not", as contraries.
> taking the metaphysical sense of Being and then divvying it up into two categories "being" and "non-being".
Being in the metaphysical sense is determination, what you call "presence." Therefore a contrary which is not. If it does not have a contrary, then we are speaking of something entirely different which is no longer "Being." It is very simple.
>unified by the common thread of "being a genus".
You're being tricked by language again. They are not unified by "being a genus", just by "genus." And this is still merely an intellectual abstraction. A genus in itself is nothing.
>Language
You still don't get it. The point stands even if you present a method of departing from subjects and predicates. It's about any sort of meaning or content, even your mere fact of awareness or sensation. Hence why Being provides an unshakeable foundation, it is self-evident and inescapable.
>No you haven't, you've been repeatedly saying that I'm predicating being of non-being, which is exactly the opposite of what I am conveying, which is that this predication is impossible. Non-being and being stand alone without any copula, "is" or "is not", as contraries.
You refuted yourself the moment you made them genera. The copula, the unifying thread you explicitly identify, is that each one is a "genus". You expressly unified them through a common term.
Not to mention that you relate them in various other ways, but whatever, this is enough to show your self-refutation. You seem to realise this when you admit that "Brahman" is above both categories, although evidently you don't fully appreciate the broader context and its ramifications.
>If it does not have a contrary, then we are speaking of something entirely different which is no longer "Being." It is very simple.
I've explained a few times how you're using terminology to avoid the metaphysical discussion. I even asked you to just understand my use of Being as speaking at the scope/breadth of your term, "Brahman". Not sure what else I can do if you're purposely hiding from the metaphysical discussion.
>You're being tricked by language again. They are not unified by "being a genus", just by "genus." And this is still merely an intellectual abstraction. A genus in itself is nothing.
If a genus "in itself" is nothing, then what significance does the word have when you say "Being" and "Non-Being" are genera? Should I just delete the word, so you are just saying "Being and Non-Being are"? It doesn't solve your problem, which is that they are now unified by whatever "are" involves. Presumably that will be "isness", which I have described at length and is fatal to your position.
great thanks, good to have you on board. here's your elean citizenship, go preach the good metaphysical word to these confused philosopher dunces
I'm bowing out of the thread for what remains of the day, if you want the last word feel free to have it, thank you for your time and the discussion.
>affirmation or presence per se - there's no alternative to the affirmation or "isness", there's no question of incorrect description yet.
I suppose if you are some sort of unconscious chinese room then yes for everything you perceive or think you perceive you are allowed to reflexively say "it is" regardless of any criteria for whether such judgments are true. I can say "it is a tree," with this knowledge beamed into my brain from the world of forms because I recognize the objective treeness of the tree in its tree-being, and this has nothing to do with language, or how a human interacts with the world vs a non-human, and so forth.
>no alternative to the affirmation or "isness"
...is not?
Lol
>but then you pretend you are signifying some additional meaning that might be grasped.
It can't be grasped by simple linguistic expressions we are accustomed to. Symbolic science is generally the best method of communication for higher understanding, symbols do not rely solely on linguistic categories, they have meaning embedded in them without categoric statements. It's typical to overlook this fact and impute some sort of naive animism to "primitive" cultures like the Egyptians.
> For if you have signified or referenced a "more than that", then language touched upon it
It can touch upon it if you're capable of expanding your understanding beyond the literal linguistic structures of a sentence. Because a means of expression is flawed (all are, fundamentally, imperfect because means are not ends), does not mean that it is unserviceable.
>Very funny, here's the retort: there is a way in which being is one
Are you not read on Aristotle at all? This is the claim he made, that "Being" and "One" are identical. My assertion is that because Being is a determination, it therefore must have its opposite, non-Being. And above both is the pure potency of Brahman which is both purely potential and actual, and therefore neither potential nor actual, which amounts to the same thing.
>Similarly, if there are two genera, they are unified by the over-arching term "genus".
You are grasping the point. That genus is beyond both of the opposites though, it is neither Being nor non-Being; Brahman, the Infinite.
>Re: interpretation, you are yet to provide any coherent reading of "is not"
Is not is the opposite (contrary, privation) of Being. Due to the flaws of language however (the fact that I have to use a copula to say anything about it), this description is flawed. It doesn't negate the basic essence however; in order for anything to be, there must equally not-be. If Being does not have a contrary, then it is not a determination, and therefore it cannot be seen as "being" because it "is not" "anything."
>You cannot escape this by saying "well, there's a "Being" and a "Beyond-Being""
There cannot be only Being, because it has a contrary (whether you consider it a contrary of privation or not is irrelevant to the point), non-Being. To assert that Being is the highest genus would be to implicitly assert another genus of equal breadth, meaning that Being is not the highest genus because there is another of the same height. Thus the mere assertion that it is the highest genus is self-contradictory. Anything which has a contrary cannot be a first or exclusive principle. Thus why Brahman as non-dual, neither being nor non-being, is the first principle (to phrase it so scholastically).
>Already subsumed by Shankara and non-dualism, even by Plotinus.
Also, this is funny but please don't make this mistake again.
the trinity obviously requires a faithful belief that Jesus is the son of god, while advaita is just pure logic. the trinity is less useful since you still have plenty of Christian thinkers that have to use apologetics that incorporate platonic emanation into their arguments. if you only care about pure logic it seems right to go with advaita, since you don’t need the ritualistic and pagan components to understand it properly
A lot of what you're saying is true, but look at the effects. Advaita is logically sounder, but Hinduism doesn't take from it as much as its pantheon of pagan gods, and look at what a mess India is religiously and politically as a result. Why wasn't Advaita or another clean version of Hinduism able to dominate the flood of ideas in India?
Christianity is much more successful at order, progress, and influence, which is why I find it useful to attempt pursuing the Trinity as a basis for religion. Even if it does seem like its theologians are playing word games.
The religion of the most developed society (Western) is the worship of the anus. So by that logic Christianity should be discarded in favor of the great hole
>scrutinsanity
If the real phenomenological world is illusory then so is my realizing that it's illusory.
So yeah, it holds up but only in illusory fantasy world.
Trinity is moronic
>god is not two things
>god is three things that are one thing
Not a jeetology expert but since the first is crypto-Buddhism and the second is Greek theologians trying to square God having a son with what the Old Testament says, probably your best bet is Advaita.
Trinity is an aesthetico-religious idea, though it does hold up philosophically it's not trying to be philosophy itself.
The achievements of art through Western religions towers above that of the East, while the achievement of philosophy through Eastern religions towers above the West. Can you imagine a Hindu Greek tragedy or Crucifixion altarpiece? Or a Western interpretation of dogma a la the infinitely mind boggling Hindu philosophy?
>the achievement of philosophy through Eastern religions towers above the West.
If philosophy from the East towers above the West, why has the East been so much worse for centuries? Why hasn't eastern Philosophy converted a large and esteemed contingent of the West's intelligentsia, who are mostly Christian or irreligious?
>Why hasn't eastern Philosophy converted a large and esteemed contingent of the West's intelligentsia
Lots of israelites have become Buddhists. Since they started the last major Western religious revolution, away from polytheism to monotheism, they are perhaps ahead of the curve yet again to take you from monotheism to pure monism. Neo-Spinoza arrives from the future.
except they get into mcbuddhism and every branch of buddhism is gradually dying out as the abrahamics encroach on the world
is spinoza pantheism or panentheism? can you cite the specific spinozan text in latin with textual commentary for your claim?
Why would I give you a Latin citation of Spinoza? Are we speaking Latin? Whether he was a pantheist or a panentheist is only relevant to autistic historical Germans who will get in trouble with Protestant authorities for approving something anti-Abrahamic. Kojeve's gives a brief criticism of Spinoza's Ethics, one perhaps not without some humor, in saying that for what he says in it to be true it would have to have been written by God himself. This is obviously rejected by our dear marxist, but for our purposes, there is your answer—if God is the sole substance, there is nothing that is not God. One can find similar monist developments in medieval India
>if God is the sole substance, there is nothing that is not God.
but spinozists sometimes claim that god is limited to this universe. did spinoza really say that? if he was stupid enough to, who is the nearest philosopher or spinozist who is more philosophically coherent and demonstrates god is not theoretically limited to the universe?
>not theoretically limited to the universe
idk since I don't write for Marvel, but start with Loki on Disney+
I never said Eastern philosophy towered over Western philosophy.
I am a genius.
Based mentally provincial poster reducing everything to 200 character-deep classifications. We can learn so much from your lack of knowledge