Replies

And these are the guys whose "testimony" you cite in support of your own [nihilist] argument? Notwithstanding that you reject "testimony" in principle?

Good grief, dear kosta; but you must be dreaming. Either that, or grossly (and grotesquely) misrepresenting what these men were saying.

Let's have a look:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all. — Socrates

In the first place, in this passage, the correct word isn't "exists," it's "consists". The prefix "con" stipulates a relation to something outside the cognitive self. Socrates — the great gadfly of Athens (who stung so many "worthy ones" that they ended up conspiring to kill him, which conspiracy was successful) — did say something to the effect that "I know that I know nothing; and because of this knowledge, I am wiser than other men."

You leave out the context of this remark. Socrates, in modesty before the God whose oracle was at Delphi, was trying to mitigate, distance himself, from the oracular words the Pythia had spoken, in response to Socrates' friend's question. The answer was: Socrates is the wisest of men.

In his response, indeed Socrates was the wisest of men. He knew that wisdom was of divine Source. He knelt to this Source.

This hardly constitutes a repudiation of God! Socrates doesn't even complain that there are limits to human knowledge that cannot be overcome in principle, on categorical grounds....

We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know. — Albert Einstein

Again, the great-souled Einstein (IMHO) is not expunging the universe of "metaphysical" reality. He is simply acknowledging the category problem already alluded to: I.e., that God, being outside of dimensionality altogether, is not entirely reducible to human terms.

Of all the persons you cite, kosta, Einstein is probably the most profoundly religious in spirit. Alamo-Girl and I have been posting excerpts of his comments along these lines forever it seems, and to you directly. But it's as if you never heard of them....

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious. — Albert Schweitzer

And thus, for the third time, your "source" is acknowledging a mysterious "beyond" the Limit of human reason....

Thinking it over, it seems you want the world to be so "flat" that questions involving context [which would seem to involve the presence of at least one additional temporal dimension] can never come up. It's all dominoes, from first to last. Simply take the man at his word — and then explain his words in ways he would never have intended.

What do you really hope to accomplish by such methods?

Just wondering....

Thank you so much for writing, dear kosta!

And these are the guys whose "testimony" you cite in support of your own [nihilist] argument?

Nihilist? Which definition, pray tell?

nihilism [my emphasis added]

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy .
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Synonyms:

revolutionary

radical

cynic

rebel

Source: dictionary.com

Notwithstanding that you reject "testimony" in principle?

I tend to think of those examples as opinions. Three is a difference, I am sure you understand.

Good grief, dear kosta; but you must be dreaming. Either that, or grossly (and grotesquely) misrepresenting what these men were saying.

You are such pleasure, betty boop.

grotesque

1. odd or unnatural in shape, appearance, or character; fantastically ugly or absurd; bizarre.

fantastic in the shaping and combination of forms, as in decorative work combining incongruous human and animal figures with scrolls, foliage, etc.

Synonyms:

preposterous

extravagant

incongruous

flamboyant

outlandish

ridiculous

distorted

You are outdoing yourself, bb.

In the first place, in this passage, the correct word isn't "exists," it's "consists".

Really? What word did he use in Greek?

The prefix "con" stipulates a relation to something outside the cognitive self.

Really? The word consistere comes from late Latin (16th century AD), and means to cause to stand with. Socrates lived in the 5th century BC, 2000 years before the word consist was coined, and he used Greek, not Latin. So, how do you know what word he used? "Spiritual hunch"?

[Socrates] did say something to the effect that "I know that I know nothing; and because of this knowledge, I am wiser than other men."

How do you exactly know what he said? You are paraphrasing him. With what authority or qualifications? And you are mind-reading him.

And how does that make what I simply quoted a "grotesque misrepresentation" when I never even attempted to interpret, let alone freely paraphrase him?

I have seen your and AG's excerpts, which conveniently leave out those that disagree with your claim, such as "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever." or "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." Or "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic." Einstein was almost forced to leave the US because of his atheist stand. I think you might expand your views with some adiditonal reading such as Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer.

This "most profoundly religious in spirit" (whatever that means) was viciously attacked by Kansas City Bishop for "denying the great tradition of [the Jewish] race." And the founder of the Calvary Tabernacle Association in Oklahoma invited him, on behalf of all Christians in America, "to go back where you came from."

Apparently Einstein's Christian contemporaries saw him in a much different light than someone "most profoundly religious in spirit."

And thus, for the third time, your "source" is acknowledging a mysterious "beyond" the Limit of human reason....

And your point is?

Thank you so much for sharing all those insights, dearest sister in Christ!

Of course, I must share this classic:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is. - Albert Einstein, “My Credo,” presented to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, in Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, ed., London: Simon & Schuster, 1993, page 262.

And my personal favorite:

Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous. - Einstein