Skip to main content

beyond ghostly abstractions and unintelligible concretions

An intellectual grasp is frequently called an abstraction.  And in literature and philosophy we talk of abstraction as a kind of diluted colorless version of the concrete... as a concept in the mind rather than something really present to the senses.

But to think of tasting food, for example, is to think of something in a way more attractive than this or that food that lies before one's eyes.  In a sense "to taste food" is infinitely more alluring than "this food": for the former gives rise to a kind of creativity that is unlimited: new foods, new ways of preparing old foods, obsession with food, food food food.  Why?  Is a neurological account of an obsession with food able to give an adequate explanation?  No.  An intentional analysis is needed.  And it reveals that there is a kind of unlimited nature to human  activities directed to the enjoyment of food because the object of desire is BEING, and there is something unlimited to being.

Maybe this explains how we relate to sex and family as well.  We desire an infinite version of ... communion.

Maybe, when Dawkins thinks he has explained away religious fervor in terms of misdirected sexual emotions (romance, faithfulness, belonging, committment, St. Theresa in ecstasy, etc.), he is missing the point.  When he compares it to a moth heading toward a candle flame, he fails to consider that the object of human desire is more like a moth trying to fly toward the sun (which, for all practical purposes, is infinitely far away).

Note also that RD is oblivious to FAMILY emotions (mom/dad/kid stuff), but reduces affective aspect of religion to sex..... does this guy have any kids?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more