tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post1641302937556081621..comments2024-03-27T14:45:28.176-05:00Comments on Adventus: Is compassion artificial?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-44992690338646523732013-08-06T10:36:43.848-05:002013-08-06T10:36:43.848-05:00The thing about the word "exist" is that...<i>The thing about the word "exist" is that, like pretty much every word, it means different things in different contexts (*). When I say that an electron exists, it means that an object called an electron would go a long, long way in explaining many phenomena I can observe. When I say the computer I'm using exists, it means I can touch it, use it, etc. When I say that I exist, I am pretty much making a Cartesian statement -- I exist because I am aware of my existence. Where does this leave animals? Probably somewhere between computers and me.</i><br /><br />Precisely, though I'm not sure I'd hinge existence on self-consciousness. My cat is clearly aware of his existence, and of mine; and, in terms of the old joke, he's convinced he's a god, because I provide for his needs.<br /><br />The Cartesian denial of "soul" (i.e., self-consciousness) originated in the Xian notion that only humans had souls. I'm not sure that's a defensible position anymore, but it's still an interesting question without a commonly accepted answer.<br /><br /><i> Where does this leave God? What does it mean to say "God exists"? Some would argue that to even try to delineate meaning beyond mere statement of God's existence is impossible because (following Kant) God is Ding an Sich or because (following Fromm in You shall be as Gods) God's inherent property is to be NAMELESS, and that insight of endowing God with an unpronounceable name is the real theological genius of the J-source.</i><br /><br />Most modern discussions fall back on some version of Tillich's "Ground of Being," a concept a bit too vague for my taste; or, trying to qualify Tillich (who used the term himself), as Being itself. Again, a little muzzy for me. Then again, when it comes to the nature of God, I'm pretty much a negative theology adherent. You're point about the J-source, in that light, becomes spot on.<br /><br /><i>As to "Compassion is for individuals; not for groups. Compassion is for what you can directly know." ... how true. Unfortunately, it creates a world in which "one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic" and in which we spend a lot of energy dealing with little problems and not even addressing big problems.</i><br /><br />Yeah; I couldn't get the tone of regret into print that I would have had in articulation.<br /><br />And my thanks for the comments. As will become apparent by the end of the day, I've been trying to ride this tiger for a week or so. As obsessions go, it's not the best one I could have, but then obsessions are the things we aren't in control of, aren't they?Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-83107146474511194362013-08-06T10:07:30.047-05:002013-08-06T10:07:30.047-05:00The thing about the word "exist" is that...The thing about the word "exist" is that, like pretty much every word, it means different things in different contexts (*). When I say that an electron exists, it means that an object called an electron would go a long, long way in explaining many phenomena I can observe. When I say the computer I'm using exists, it means I can touch it, use it, etc. When I say that <b>I</b> exist, I am pretty much making a Cartesian statement -- I exist because I am aware of my existence. Where does this leave animals? Probably somewhere between computers and me. Where does this leave God? What does it mean to say "God exists"? Some would argue that to even try to delineate meaning beyond mere statement of God's existence is impossible because (following Kant) God is Ding an Sich or because (following Fromm in <i>You shall be as Gods</i>) God's inherent property is to be NAMELESS, and that insight of endowing God with an unpronounceable name is the real theological genius of the J-source.<br /><br />As to "Compassion is for individuals; not for groups. Compassion is for what you can directly know." ... how true. Unfortunately, it creates a world in which "one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic" and in which we spend a lot of energy dealing with little problems and not even addressing big problems.<br /><br />BTW: your last question is pretty much what you hear from certain "hard agnostics" as to why they are not atheists.<br /><br />* and no amount of making language more precise and specific can get around this: even in the language of math 2x + 3y means different things depending on what x and y mean ... and even if we don't go into applied math, we still have the question of which field we are in: the rationals, the reals, the complex numbers, a p-adic field ...alberichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852752646926946626noreply@blogger.com