It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If I penetrate to the depths of my own existence and my own present reality, the indefinable am that is myself in its deepest roots, then through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am which is the very Name of the Almighty.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.
Originally posted by akushla99
I am colorblind red...describe the color red to me...
A99
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Originally posted by akushla99
I am colorblind red...describe the color red to me...
A99
I assume you still have the senses of temperature? If so I would describe that red is the temperature that comes out of the hot tap. You know that blue represents the cold and red the hot.
But they intend to refer to an experience- if one has not had that experience, than no words will communicate the experience. Try to explain to someone a color, when they have never seen that color.
Refer to the taste of apple, try to describe what it is like, to someone who has never tasted an apple.
It is not possible.
To someone who has tasted an apple, or seen the color, the words will not make them taste or see those things right now, but they might stir the memory of the experience.
Arguments for and against the existence of God presuppose such an understanding of God. Tillich is critical of this mode of discourse which he refers to as "theological theism," and argues that if God is a Being [das Seiende], even if the highest Being, God cannot be properly called the source of all being, and the question can of course then be posed as to why God exists, who created God, when God's beginning is, and so on. To put the issue in traditional language: if God is a being [das Seiende], then God is a creature, even if the highest one, and thus cannot be the Creator. Rather, God must be understood as the "ground of Being-Itself". The problem persists in the same way when attempting to determine whether God is an eternal essence, or an existing being, neither of which are adequate, as traditional theology was well aware.
Originally posted by akushla99
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Originally posted by akushla99
I am colorblind red...describe the color red to me...
A99
I assume you still have the senses of temperature? If so I would describe that red is the temperature that comes out of the hot tap. You know that blue represents the cold and red the hot.
You can assume as much as you like...neither the assumption, nor the comparison used describes the color...incidentally, using terms such as temperature to describe are a form of euphemism...please describe without euphemism of any sort...to convince me the color red exists...
A99
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Words such as "ego", "soul" or "God" are euphemisms for gaps in understanding,
Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
"If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described."
~ Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics.
Could you please explain to me what this means, exactly?
LesMis, have you considered that perhaps those words such as consciousness, God, etc., do not convey meaning to you because you have not experienced anything about them?
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I agree with this. But then again, imagining something and holding it to be real is also an experience. The simple act of creating a notion can be referred to and remembered, but it is still nothing more than a creative notion, not something that exists as it is described and promised.
Words such as "ego", "soul" or "God" are euphemisms for gaps in understanding, much like luminiferous aether, the flat earth, phlogiston, and miasma were used to fill in the holes of knowledge at the time.