Forum Japon

 

[ S'enregistrer ]   [ Rechercher ]    [ Liste des Membres ]    [ Groupes d'utilisateurs ]   [ FAQ ]  
[ Connexion ]   [ Mes messages privés ]   [ Profil ]
"Philosophy of today's Japan"

Recherche Rapide :

 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    ForumJapon.com Index du Forum -> Life in Japan
Voir le sujet précédent :: Voir le sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
SASAKI Hiroshi
Floodeur


Inscrit le: 10 Avr 2005
Messages: 76
Points: -596
Pays, Ville: JAPON

MessagePosté le: 23 Juil 2005 11:38    Sujet du message: "Philosophy of today's Japan"

 Ce message n'a pas encore été noté.
Répondre en citant

http://www1.odn.ne.jp/~cak23720/

[ An Argument on Non-existence of the Absolute ]-- With additions to the released material in my own website on November 9, 1998 -- SASAKI Hiroshi

What is the "Absolute"?

According to the absolutists’ statement as seen in the fields such as Christian theology and Western philosophy, the absolute being is generally immutable; an existence beyond comparison and unfeasible to have a relationship with others, or a transcendent subsistence existing completely independent from this mutating and relative world of phenomena. Therefore, it is also called the transcendent. Since it is beyond relationships with other beings, it is completely free from any conditioning rendered by others at all. Thus, it is also called the Unconditional (“das Unbedingte”). These descriptions seem to be the plain summary of so-called the Absolute according to the absolutists. By the way, we, human beings, are not such absolute beings.

Obviously, we are neither immutable, beyond comparison or having relationships with others.

We all possess rational activities such as thinking and emotions such as the joy, anger, humor and pathos that change kaleidoscopically. These are the part of our consciousness as the phenomena of our on-going relativity and changes.

Rationally speaking, it is logically inevitable that we have no connection with such an absolute being of Christianity and Western philosophy because it is impossible to have a relationship with a being that exists beyond a relationship. It is entirely incoherent to say that we can have a relationship with a being that exists beyond a relationship. Besides, we cannot bring about a change to an immutable substance; neither can we obtain a change from an immutable substance. In addition, even in view of the experimental fact, it is also improbable for an immutable, incomparable, and transcendent being to be revealed in our phenomenal consciousness (= experience). That is, the thing currently revealed in our consciousness and the things which can be revealed do not exist apart from the phenomena. Neither can an immutable, incomparable, and transcendent being be subjected to our consciousness. There is not even a possibility for such. Extremely speaking, it cannot principally become the object of faith. After all, there is no objective reality of such a notion that we can have a relationship with the Absolute. Moreover, it is an inevitable logical conclusion: to say we can have a relationship with the Absolute is incoherent, and is a fallacy. Furthermore, if I may add, we exist as a phenomenon, and the Absolute does not exist in this changing and relative world of actual phenomena; yet, you might think that the Absolute exists at the independent, non-relative transcendent place apart from the world of actual phenomena. Such a premise is meaningless because it is not possible for us to have a relationship with a being in an unrealistic (= metaphysical) world which is transcendent from the actual world. And we cannot obtain a change from an immutable substance; neither can we bring about a change to an immutable substance. I am absolutely certain that it is not possible at all, not even once because, if a relationship with the Absolute were possible even once, then the idea of “It is the Absolute” itself becomes false. Consequently, deism is unfeasible either. Furthermore, at the moment what is called revelation appears to our consciousness as an objective reality, the revelation is proven not to be the Absolute. The existence of revelation itself nullifies the relationship with the Absolute negating the assumption of Christianity as a revealed religion. (Revelation refers to the truths and mysteries beyond human capacity to understand what is revealed by the only absolute and transcendent God.) Hence, non-existence of the only absolute and transcendent God, namely what monotheism calls the Absolute, is proven by the above argument so far.

[ An Argument on Non-existence of Substance ]-- With additions to the released material in my own website on November 9, 1998 -- SASAKI Hiroshi

What is the “Substance” according to substantialists?

It refers to an entity that exists at the root of mutable phenomena such as objects, consciousness, and mind. This also governs and controls the changes entirely while itself is remaining immutable and constant, namely, a substance.

What a naive philosophy it is! How can a constant entity govern and bring about changes while existing itself immutable and constant. If an immutable and consistent substance governs "change" and causes "change" to phenomena, then, how are we ought to consider the meanings of the very actions like “to govern” or “to cause a change”? To govern and to cause something: these actions themselves are to "change" or subject to "change", aren't they? Such notion is absolutely absurd and even contradictory. What they call "Substance" is essentially within a certain phenomenon causing a certain change to and obtaining such from the phenomenon. Namely, it should be considered as an internal phenomenon within the phenomena.

Substantialists would say that is not correct. In other words, they may assert the notion that there is the only one immutable Substance existing independent from the mutable phenomena completely and consistently at the root of any phenomena. If this is the case, their Substance is exactly, as they say, something that has nothing to do with us, humans, who exist as mere phenomena. After all, what they call the "Substance" is nothing but a fictitious concept. It is not plausible that the Substance reveals itself in our experience (=consciousness). Neither is it plausible that the Substance influences something else or is influenced by something else. At the moment it reveals itself in or influences our experience, it proves itself not to be the Substance. At this point, it has become clear that the Substance cannot exist as an objective experience or an objective reality. Moreover, we can see it is nothing but a logically incoherent fictitious existence. Henceforth, the nonexistence of substance was also proven above.

[ Epistemology ]-- With additions to the released material in my own website on November 9, 1998 -- SASAKI Hiroshi

I believe that, to know something generally requires the coordination of the three types of elements: Objective experiences with its subject (subjective reality), Consistency of general logic (constitution of concept = symbols, concept=idea, logic=constitution), and Validity of general value (includes positive/negative/neutral values and the general/individual values).

This explanation is very short; however, it will probably be sufficient to explain epistemology in general.

[ Eternal Now ]-- With additions to the released material in my own website on September, 26, 1999 -- SASAKI Hiroshi

The whole phenomenon (universe) one second before the whole phenomenon (universe) including us does not exist any longer. And the whole phenomenon (universe) of one second after does not yet exist.

It is not only the time frame of per second, but also the same in case of the time frames of per 0.001 seconds, per 0.0001 seconds, per 1/10 million-second, or even per 1/1 trillion seconds.

The entire universe including us, even just 1/1-trillion seconds prior, does not exist any longer. And all the universe of 1/1-trillion seconds in the future does not yet exist.

However, it is clear that the past whole phenomenon existed, continued from the past-time immemorial, and has come to us in this present moment. For example, we do not exist before our parents were yet to born.

And there, our existential value as human beings resides in our very action, as human, of living this Eternal Now within the momentum continuation amid the gap between what does not exist any longer and what does not yet exist.

Maybe, this "Eternal Now" which maintains the continuation of all existence from time immemorial could be truly truly a "god."
Revenir en haut
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Envoyer l'e-mail Visiter le site web du posteur
ElieDeLeuze
7eme Dan
7eme Dan


Inscrit le: 04 Nov 2003
Messages: 2733
Points: 25606

MessagePosté le: 23 Juil 2005 12:04    Sujet du message: Re:

 Note du Post : 4   Nombre d'avis : 1
Répondre en citant

Christians have an Absolute, because they need it.

For a christian (same for all three monotheistic religions), life as energy is devine. That means that they are looking for an origine to something that in itself doesn't need any. Life as such must have a beginning, and an end. So not only humans go through the processes of birth, life and death, but the whole universe. That doesn't mean that they are right or wrong, that prooves only one thing : they take the human life as origine for philosophy, not the whole universe as such. It's not negociable with the christians : humans are special beings. There is no explanation for that, it's arbitrary.

Being special must be very nice, but philosophy demands logic. In order to make the specificity of humanhood logic, christianity must find something in humans that the rest of the univers doesn't have. Out of this need was created the philosophical necessity of God. Without a God, humans are biological beings, equal with any other biological beings, like animals. For a christian, a human becomes human - and not animal - when life is given to him by God. But this divine life can not be body and mind, or else any animal would be divine. Therefore christians could not keep the logic of human theological specificity without inventing the soul. Soul is the divine life from God, making humans special beings, because of divine Essenz. The necessity of the existence of soul is dictated by the goal of defining humanity as non-animal. This is pure manipulation.

The existence of soul being a necessity to the christian arbitrary choice of giving humans a special status in the univers creates the necessity of putting the existence of soul into the perspective of time. Souls being created (birth), given to humans (life)... they should die too. Unfortunatly, a divine creation can only be divine itself, and divinity can not die, in order to keep the axiom of the eternity of God alive. If souls were to die, so would God. From the necessity of keeping God alive for eternity as to make denial of its existence impossible, christians must deal with the souls of dead people. So called life after death is then also a logical necessity. It doesn't matter to them to make life after death possible in the univers... in their mind, it can just not be otherwise. All that started with pretending arbitrarely that humans were not animals.....

I am not trying to write a thisis in theology, but monotheism is far more simple to understand if we see at it as a chain of conceptual necessities totaly disconnected from the existence of the univers and focussed on the soly goal of justifying the arbitrary of the idea that humans would be different from anything else in the univers. Buddha would call it vanity.
Revenir en haut
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
SASAKI Hiroshi
Floodeur


Inscrit le: 10 Avr 2005
Messages: 76
Points: -596
Pays, Ville: JAPON

MessagePosté le: 23 Juil 2005 13:39    Sujet du message: The academic freedom

 Ce message n'a pas encore été noté.
Répondre en citant

The academic freedom cannot be denied.

Once, Galilei was made into heresy.
Revenir en haut
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Envoyer l'e-mail Visiter le site web du posteur
Botchan
4eme Dan
4eme Dan


Inscrit le: 11 Sep 2004
Messages: 672
Points: 11619

MessagePosté le: 01 Fév 2006 20:09    Sujet du message:

 Note du Post : 4   Nombre d'avis : 2
Répondre en citant

But who the hell are the "Absolutists" and the "Substancialists" you evoke ?
What is the problem you want to expose (If there is anyone...) ?

You are just trying to give yourself a philosopher's allure... your sentences do not make any sense but this one : "I want to get you wrong"... Cause it is the enterprise who you, the Fascists, have raised with the offical organ of Propaganda called "Association for the rewriting of history textbooks", the "tsukuru-kai" つくる会, which you declare to be part of on your website (the link is above) !! What a shame.
_________________
"Avec ce pouvoir [de la réthorique], tu feras ton esclave du médecin, ton esclave du pédotribe et, quant au fameux financier, on reconnaîtra que ce n'est pas pour lui qu'il amasse de l'argent mais pour autrui, pour toi qui sais parler et persuader les foules." Platon, Gorgias (IVème siècle avant J-C) - NB : suis privé du droit de notation depuis Fukushima, devinez pourquoi !-


Dernière édition par Botchan le 02 Fév 2006 15:15; édité 2 fois
Revenir en haut
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
SASAKI Hiroshi
Floodeur


Inscrit le: 10 Avr 2005
Messages: 76
Points: -596
Pays, Ville: JAPON

MessagePosté le: 02 Fév 2006 02:03    Sujet du message: Hello

 Note du Post : 1   Nombre d'avis : 4
Répondre en citant

It is abnormal that you do not think yourself to be shameful.
Revenir en haut
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Envoyer l'e-mail Visiter le site web du posteur
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    ForumJapon.com Index du Forum -> Life in Japan Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 1 Heure
Page 1 sur 1

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.16 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group (Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com)