From the Logician: Part III of IV
... Whoa there Sir, you haven’t got a clue how God thinks and to state that you do is one step on a slippery slope, I sincerely hope that you do not really mean it literally, if you do, our correspondence will be hereby severed.
As religions say: God created man in his image and in the image of God created He man.
And that one statement has caused nothing but sorrow since it was first uttered. It is sheer human arrogance to believe that God or similar entity would look anything like us. Patriarchal tosh.
I am simply beginning my ontological discussions from fundamental premises of religions and proceeding from there. I am also demonstrating, using the tool of metaphysical modelling, that the fundamental ontological premises, are steeped in rationality and reason.
Metaphysical modelling? You mean imagination, creative imagination.
Djs: all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, - This is known as relative moralism. Such a positing is based upon the fundamental: There is no such thing as absolute truth other than the statement there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Anyone and everyone has the right to believe such a fundamental principle but such a fundamental principle voids all legitimacy of opposing dialectics based upon reason.
It does not void all legitimacy of opposing dialectics at all, that is such a narrow minded view, quite the opposite is true, it allows opposing viewpoints to have equal validity, thus giving a broader spectrum of viewpoints.
Djs: as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. That is exactly the product of your model: There is no such thing as right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical,
You obviously have not read the model I sent you a while back, it does not state that there no such things as “right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical” at all, it asked you to put everything you have ever been taught to one side, then to read the logical text proving that we are all human way before we are introduced to religious belief and suchlike, then with that understanding give rise to the cessation of all hostilities. It then asked you to take what you put aside, back again and redefine the principles on which society can be based upon as a united, yet unique individual, nation and world. This means all previous understandings of morality are once more bought into the forum. Each nation would then be able to write the laws which specifically pertain to them, along with the basic laws of human rights. It allows the differences of nations to be celebrated and not congeal all nations under one supposed set of rules. True equality within and across all borders.
Djs: Solutions are what people are looking for, are what people have been seeking since they began thinking and they look to the thinkers to provide the answers.
If the thinkers refuse to tackle the issues, the thinkers are shirking there very reason for having been given the ability to think.
It is not up to one “thinker” to provide all the answers/solutions, it is far better to allow all others to think for themselves.
Djs: No you provided no solution at all, to suggest that everybody is correct is to suggest there is no solution at all.
Oh but I do provide a solution by suggesting that everyone is correct, in doing so they can for the first time understand that they might all be wrong, thus enabling the advent of their own solutions by themselves for themselves, and with every nation on Earth doing it at the same time, voila a global solution based upon unique solutions and not just one.
People are yearning for answers to the questions: What is reality? What are we? Why do we exist? Is there life after physical death? My son or daughter died, where are they now? ... To say the answer is whatever they want it to be is to suggest there is no answer.
You really do have a problem with logic that’s not your own don’t you? Let me put it another way then; When the question of reality is raised for example, because there is no definitive answer, it opens up the floodgates for a myriad of answers all with equal validity, thus the answer of “it can be whatever you want it to be” becomes correct. Just because someone else has a difference of opinion about life after death etc… doesn’t mean they are wrong, we humans have a passion for immortality, a need to believe that we survive after death, but if you look back in history only a few select were allowed to believe that they went into the afterlife, and they were the “rulers”. The rest of them were not allowed to be immortal or even have immortal thoughts about themselves. Go even further back and no-one thought of immortality, they accepted they came and went as the world around them showed that this was the way life is. It matters not if the answer is not the same around the world, the fact it isn’t makes it all the more interesting. You could of course answer the questions with logic, so here goes:
What is reality? Everything you can think of
What are we? Humans
Why do we exist? To experience life
Is there life after physical death? Of course
My son or daughter died, where are they now? In your heart and mind
An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are art is to suggest there is no such thing as art.