Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I can get behind this theology:

Where, then, does the principle of factiality leave the question of God? In a position that can be adequately described neither as theistic nor as atheistic. There are four, and only four, possible ways that man can relate to God, Meillassoux argues, only three of which have hitherto been exploited (ID 388). In these four options, it is clear that Meillassoux is using ‘belief in’ not in the sense of ‘assent to the existence of’ but ‘hope in’.

First option: one can not believe in God because he doesn’t exist. Meillassoux lets his attitude to this atheistic option be known by summing it up as a position that leads to sadness, luke-warmness, cynicism and ressentiment. It is, he concludes, the immanent form of despair, a form of what I am calling ascetic atheism.

Secondly, one can believe in God because he exists, but this leads to the deadlocks of fanaticism, a flight from this world, and the confusions of holiness with mysticism and of God as love with God as power. It is the religious form of hope.

Thirdly, one can not believe in God because he exists. This is the Luciferian posture of revolt, maintaining a haughty indifference which in effect is a mixture of animosity towards God (in which the displayed indifference is only hatred expressed in the most hurtful way) and classical atheism, whose deadlocks (namely cynicism, sarcasm towards every aspiration, and self-hatred) it exacerbates. It is the religious form of despair.

The fourth way of relating man and God, and the option which has until now remained unexploited, is to believe in God because he does not exist: the immanent form of hope. This is the option with which Meillassoux identifies his philosophy.

 

[Dak]

Why can't there be a dialectical union between 2 and 4? That's where I am at.

 

[rms]

I don't think I can comprehend number 4.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why can't there be a dialectical union between 2 and 4? That's where I am at.

I can't say why, or that there definitively can't be. Meillassoux isn't a dialectician though, so he probably doesn't see these positions as dialectically synthesizable.

I don't think I can comprehend number 4.

Yeah, it's pretty counter-intuitive. Here's a link to the article I was reading:

http://christopherwatkin.com/2013/05/26/quentin-meillassoux-and-divine-inexistence/

The quotes are in French because there's no English translation of Meillassoux's text, but all you need is the author's explication.

 

[rms]

I enjoy what he said about miracles, but how does he define God if not omniscient?

because miracles demonstrate the contingency of the world, and show thereby that no divine will underwrites the so-called ‘perennial laws’ of nature.

 

[Einherjar86]

I read through the piece a few days ago and don't have time to go back through it - does he suggest that the notion of God would be otherwise than omniscient? From my understanding, he's operating under the Christian theological assumption that God would be omniscient.

 

[rms]

From what I understood, he implied miracles are the "irregularities" that prove God does not exist. But if you believe in God, but do not think he exists, I don't see how you cannot attribute "miracles" to God's "handywork"

 

[Dak]

From what I understood, he implied miracles are the "irregularities" that prove God does not exist. But if you believe in God, but do not think he exists, I don't see how you cannot attribute "miracles" to God's "handywork"

If you are at all familiar with Q.M.'s philosophy, he's concerned with contingency. So then it makes perfect sense to not accept the absolute non-existence of God. If we posit God as something at best only at the faint edges of possibly knowable somethings, even if God did not exist at a particular point in time, nothing can say "God" can't contingently exist at some other point in time. This obviously excludes temporal omnipresence from the definition of God. Rather than "Is there a God?", the question is "Could there become a God?" or something to that effect. Almost sort of Spinozian, if you think of the universe as God-Becoming.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dak said it more briefly and probably more simply; but I'll leave my response here:

@rms: I see what you're saying. The notion of "belief in God because He does not exist" doesn't actually translate into "believing in God" in the traditional sense, as I read it; so we have to parse that a bit.

What Meillassoux is advocating is the belief in the inexistence of God, which specifies a very particular ontological condition: God happens to not exist, but this doesn't mean that he cannot exist - contingency being the only necessary attribute of the universe, God could exist. In other words, the existence of a thing (any thing) is constituted by the fact that it could not exist; and the inexistence of a thing is constituted by the fact that it could exist.

For Meillassoux, God does not exist; but this means we can only believe in the contingent inexistence of God, not in the absolute impossibility of His existence. Meillassoux then takes some liberties, as far as I can tell, when he interprets the acts of miracles. Meillassoux interprets miracles to be proof of God's contingent inexistence because if we knew God to exist, then miracles would simply vanish - there would be no possibility for the contingency of miracles because everything would be explicably pre-ordained. Events would lose their miraculous force.

I think Meillassoux makes some ambiguous distinctions here between "believing" and "knowing"; in other words, I think that he's suggesting that if God did exist, the world would be a very different place than it currently is. He takes the world, as it exists, to be evidence of God's contingent inexistence. There's room for skepticism here because we get into a nasty paradox, which I'll try to make clear (as I understand it):

As I read Meillassoux, he argues that a purely contingent world (i.e. a world of pure chance, in which physical laws may change at a whim) is a world that must account for the inexistence of God - because God, being a thing that is absolutely necessary by definition, couldn't exist in a purely contingent universe. However, the basis of the inexistence of God is grounded upon the possibility that God might exist, or come into existence; in which case, suddenly we would have an absolutely necessary entity, an entity whose existence is not contingent. As I read this claim, I see Meillassoux suggesting that God does not exist in a universe of pure contingency, but such contingency must acknowledge the possibility that God might exist.

Fucking philosophers, man.

 

[rms]

Thanks you two, digesting over my breakfast.

 

[rms]

If you are at all familiar with Q.M.'s philosophy, he's concerned with contingency. So then it makes perfect sense to not accept the absolute non-existence of God. If we posit God as something at best only at the faint edges of possibly knowable somethings, even if God did not exist at a particular point in time, nothing can say "God" can't contingently exist at some other point in time. This obviously excludes temporal omnipresence from the definition of God. Rather than "Is there a God?", the question is "Could there become a God?" or something to that effect. Almost sort of Spinozian, if you think of the universe as God-Becoming.

On the omniscient-ness of God, I agree that his definition of what God is, has to exclude that. What is the theory/philosophy on what "God" will be if he comes at a later point in human existence? That idea seems really out there.

For Meillassoux, God does not exist; but this means we can only believe in the contingent inexistence of God, not in the absolute impossibility of His existence. Meillassoux then takes some liberties, as far as I can tell, when he interprets the acts of miracles. Meillassoux interprets miracles to be proof of God's contingent inexistence because if we knew God to exist, then miracles would simply vanish - there would be no possibility for the contingency of miracles because everything would be explicably pre-ordained. Events would lose their miraculous force.

Aren't miracles just a perspective from humans and their "inability" see God's vision/plan? I don't think God's plan could ever be laid out, to humans, right?

As I read this claim, I see Meillassoux suggesting that God does not exist in a universe of pure contingency, but such contingency must acknowledge the possibility that God might exist.

I think this sums up why i've dodged philosophy courses thus far haha

 

[Dak]

On the omniscient-ness of God, I agree that his definition of what God is has to exclude that. What is the theory/philosophy on what "God" will be if he comes at a later point in human existence? That idea seems really out there.

It would be something completely removed from any sort of anthropomorphism, which I think is what significantly undermines any sort of serious theosophical endeavor (anthropomorphism), whether speaking of a God-to-be or God-am or God-was.

 

[Einherjar86]

@rms

If you find yourself interested in this and have the time to explore, you can familiarize yourself with Meillassoux's work. His short book, After Finitude, informs a lot of his thought about theology, as well as other things; but of course, it requires trudging through some hundred-odd pages of difficult philosophical acrobatics. Which is possible, but takes time.

Alternatively, you might look to some of the essays included in this collection, which is available for free online:

http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_Turn_9780980668346.pdf

Specifically, look at Peter Hallward's "Anything is Possible: A Reading of Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude." It provides a very succinct sketch of the argument as well as some potential objections.

 

[Einherjar86]

Your position is a regurgitation of some History channel memes. I don't own Buchanon's book so I can't just quote from it, and you're minimalization of European Allied power shows a lack of knowledge and/or understanding about the state of Europe in the leadup to the war on even basic things like manpower and organization which can be very easily looked up. I'm not going to argue about it (especially in this thread) anymore when you are just basically going "germany was uber evil and uber powerful end of discussion".

I don't mean to perpetuate this if neither of you are interested; but (as you know) I do fall on rms's side in this, and I think you're doing him a disservice by dismissing his claims as History Channel memes and misinformation.

I won't claim firsthand knowledge of Buchanan's book, but from the sounds of it he seriously downplays German aggression in the early twentieth century. I don't think anyone is trying to say that Germany is uber-evil; but it isn't the case that they were a non-threat or that Hitler didn't have visions of expansive imperial campaigns extending beyond the Soviet Union.

 

[rms]

My reply to Dak, removed from the Books thread;

Are you really trying to say that France or GBR was a legitimate military power in 1939/40?

Sorry but i've taken more academic courses than you in WW2, I am sure, and have read almost 10 books on the region from both Eastern Europe's perspective and Western. These aren't memes, but instead facts. Outside of my perception of Hitler's mindset, which I have argued and clearly shown my opinion, these statements are not debatable, they are facts.

You can learn more by watching this series from the Allied perspectives;



Or this from Russia's;

 

[Dak]

So I accuse you of regurgitating History Channel memes and you respond with essentially the History channel? Re: Military strength

http://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II

In September 1939 the Allies, namely Great Britain, France, and Poland, were together superior in industrial resources, population, and military manpower, but the German Army, or Wehrmacht, because of its armament, training, doctrine, discipline, and fighting spirit, was the most efficient and effective fighting force for its size in the world. The index of military strength in September 1939 was the number of divisions that each nation could mobilize. Against Germany’s 100 infantry divisions and six armoured divisions, France had 90 infantry divisions in metropolitan France, Great Britain had 10 infantry divisions, and Poland had 30 infantry divisions, 12 cavalry brigades, and one armoured brigade (Poland had also 30 reserve infantry divisions, but these could not be mobilized quickly). A division contained from 12,000 to 25,000 men.

It was the qualitative superiority of the German infantry divisions and the number of their armoured divisions that made the difference in 1939. The firepower of a German infantry division far exceeded that of a French, British, or Polish division; the standard German division included 442 machine guns, 135 mortars, 72 antitank guns, and 24 howitzers. Allied divisions had a firepower only slightly greater than that of World War I. Germany had six armoured divisions in September 1939; the Allies, though they had a large number of tanks, had no armoured divisions at that time.

German military superiority was in organization, tactics, and training, not in numbers. You not only called Germany superior, but said that Britain and France weren't "military powers". That's just blatantly false and takes all of 2 seconds to disprove.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

So I accuse you of regurgitating History Channel memes and you respond with essentially the History channel?

same thing i was thinking. "I've took more courses than you. Read 1,231 books on WW2. But here's a history channel documentary that everyone has seen"

 

[rms]

same thing i was thinking. "I've took more courses than you. Read 1,231 books on WW2. But here's a history channel documentary that everyone has seen"

Let me know when either aired, especially one from the East's perspective. But disqualify a show neither of you have seen or disprove any points that are made.

German military superiority was in organization, tactics, and training, not in numbers. You not only called Germany superior, but said that Britain and France weren't "military powers". That's just blatantly false and takes all of 2 seconds to disprove.

Did you even read what you cited?

The index of military strength in September 1939 was the number of divisions that each nation could mobilize. Against Germany’s 100 infantry divisions and six armoured divisions, France had 90 infantry divisions in metropolitan France, Great Britain had 10 infantry divisions, and Poland had 30 infantry divisions, 12 cavalry brigades, and one armoured brigade (Poland had also 30 reserve infantry divisions, but these could not be mobilized quickly). A division contained from 12,000 to 25,000 men.

The firepower of a German infantry division far exceeded that of a French, British, or Polish division;

Like I said, legitimate military powers. France had a WW1 army, Britain was too worried on their frontiers. Germany clearly was the strongest military power in 1939. But thanks for disproving nothing, yet again. Britain would have been conquered if they were not on an island and Nazi Germany had a navy, but i'm sure you knew that anyways.

By the early part of 1939 the German dictator Adolf Hitler had become determined to invade and occupy Poland. Poland, for its part, had guarantees of French and British military support should it be attacked by Germany. Hitler intended to invade Poland anyway,

but the German Army, or Wehrmacht, because of its armament, training, doctrine, discipline, and fighting spirit, was the most efficient and effective fighting force for its size in the world.

The German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, was also the best force of its kind in 1939

Not even sure what you're arguing any more.

 

[rms]

That Hitler psycho-analysis article doesn't really delve into much detail or convincing evidence either way;

Yet unlike some historians, who distrust any application of psychological theory to historical figures, Dr. Redlich believes one cannot adequately assess Hitler's actions without taking into account not only the historical facts, but the Nazi leader's ''psychological reality.'' For example, Hitler believed that his father was half-Jewish and had died of syphilis. These beliefs, the author argues, may have affected the Nazi leader's behavior, whether or not they were true. (There is no clear evidence, Dr. Redlich writes, to support either claim.)
Dr. Redlich theorizes that Hitler may have thought his physical abnormalities -- his hypospadia and spina bifida occulta -- were signs that he had inherited syphilis from his father. And his rage at this may have fueled his anti-Semitism, and his obsession with syphilis as a ''Jewish disease,'' a theme he dwelled upon for 10 pages in ''Mein Kampf.''

Indicators of Hitler's peculiarities in later adulthood, of course, are abundant, from his sexual inhibition (he may never have had sexual intercourse with Eva Braun, Dr. Redlich writes) to his phobias of disease, his explosive rages, his delusions and his conviction that he would die at an early age (he died at 56). In his book, Dr. Redlich runs through a list of psychiatric symptoms -- paranoia, narcissism, anxiety, depression, hypochondria, to name a few -- and finds some evidence for every one. Proof that Hitler was overtly self-destructive or sexually perverse is sparser and less compelling, the author says.

Yet Dr. Redlich concludes that attaching a formal psychiatric diagnosis to the Nazi leader is not very useful. When applying such diagnoses, he writes, he often feels ''as if I were in a cheap clothing store: Nothing fits, and everything fits.'' Ultimately, the psychiatrist portrays Hitler as a man who was more than the sum of his pathology, entirely responsible for his actions.

I do not know what the psychological definition of being "mad" is, but this seems to point to it.

 

[Dak]

Let me know when either aired, especially one from the East's perspective. But disqualify a show neither of you have seen or disprove any points that are made.

I don't care about Allied war propaganda. One of my favorite war movies is Objective Burma. It's fucking war propaganda nontheless.

Did you even read what you cited?

Like I said, legitimate military powers. France had a WW1 army, Britain was too worried on their frontiers. Germany clearly was the strongest military power in 1939. But thanks for disproving nothing, yet again. Britain would have been conquered if they were not on an island and Nazi Germany had a navy, but i'm sure you knew that anyways.

If Britain and France aren't legitimate war powers, then no one was besides Germany. That's a stupid position to take. The Allied powers as a whole outnumbered Germany on land and definitely at sea. Germany had an early advantage on land in organization and tactics, which was quickly eroded, on top of Germany's finite manpower reserves vs the ever increasing Allied manpower.

That Hitler psycho-analysis article doesn't really delve into much detail or convincing evidence either way;

I do not know what the psychological definition of being "mad" is, but this seems to point to it.

Nothing fits, and everything fits.'' Ultimately, the psychiatrist portrays Hitler as a man who was more than the sum of his pathology, entirely responsible for his actions.

If this board were referenced by a psychopathologist to determine if we were psychotic, we might receive the same diagnosis.