Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/21/2016 6:20 pm

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

DanielCC wrote:

iwpoe wrote:


Obviously not, since OS doesn't not address this issue but assumes God's sovereignty in the matter and then seeks to explain why we are in the position of needing divine aid. You already have to assume a lot of Christian aparati for this to make sense: especially the gap between ourselves and God requiring God's intercession.

Is not that last claim partially what is at issue?

iwpoe wrote:

That is not an explanation but a restatement of the issue, as is...

Re the first, only if one takes ignorance rather than error as equitable with evil. I’ll grant that might be a tenable position to take on the Privation account of Evil however.

Re the second, no it's not. Your argument claims the world ought not to be the way it is, whilst I object ought to be that way because it serves a purpose.

iwpoe wrote:

A classical thinker could put it as 'Why are our ends *ever* in a position of being unsatisfied? Why is Wisdom a problem in the first place?' or more universally 'Why aren't the Forms/Eternal things all there are?' or even 'Why are things in motion in the first place, as opposed to being everything they are all at once?'

Here the tacit acknowledgement is that error is part and parcel of the nature of contingency, ergo the question becomes 'Why are there any contingent beings in the first place?'. I am surprised it should be placed in the mouth of a classical thinker though since they have a well-worn answer - contingent entities exist because the Great Chain of Being requires no gaps.

This is off-topic but are you a Platonist, and do you believe in reincarnation?
 

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/20/2016 8:52 am

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

ArmandoAlvarez wrote:

AKG wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

IIRC Socrates only says that it's like sleep on the proviso that he's wrong about the immortality of the soul.

Yeah, he says that at the end of the Apology. Okay what do you think is more worrisome in this life, living it knowing you and everyone else gets bliss/punishment afterwards or that you and everyone else goes to an eternal dreamless sleep afterwards(hope I don't sound too whiny or like a typical gnu)

I think this is a matter of personal disposition.  I read an essay by Miguel de Unamuno and he said that the idea of hell never disturbed him because it was so much less frightening to him than nonbeing.  C.S. Lewis, in his autobiography that describes his conversion, Surprised by Joy, says he never feared nonbeing, but mentions that Samuel Johnson did.  I for one side with Unamuno.  Maybe it's because I have not given due consideration to the torments of hell, but the idea of ceasing to exist for some reason upsets me more than any suffering I can think of.  I don't think it's a rational reaction; I think it's just something about my personal disposition.

As to your emotional reaction, I would say to trust in both the justice and mercy of God.  From what you know of God from philosophy, no punishment will be given to anyone that is unjust, and your religion teaches you that God has revealed himself to be exceedingly merciful.  If there seems to be a conflict between the existence of hell and the attributes of God, we are either misunderstanding the nature of hell or the nature of justice.

I will pray for you.  I again recommend The Great Divorce, which discusses at length why the suffering of Hell should not "veto" the joys of heaven.

This Unamuno guy looks like an interesting fellow. I'll read up on him. And thank you for your prayers. To be honest I'm not worried about being happy in heaven(if i get there) while theirs suffering in hell as I'm sure God would have so

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/20/2016 6:19 am

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

iwpoe wrote:

IIRC Socrates only says that it's like sleep on the proviso that he's wrong about the immortality of the soul.

Yeah, he says that at the end of the Apology. Okay what do you think is more worrisome in this life, living it knowing you and everyone else gets bliss/punishment afterwards or that you and everyone else goes to an eternal dreamless sleep afterwards(hope I don't sound too whiny or like a typical gnu)

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/19/2016 8:22 am

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

DanielCC wrote:

AKG wrote:

iwpoe wrote:


No. I want the good for all people, but one's soul is ultimately one's achievement. A man reaps what he sows is a primary lesson of life. I can aid people. I cannot do it for them. There is perhaps some kind of wisdom available to the average person. I don't know the ability or state of every soul.

Eternal oblivion is not possible for the immortal soul without special divine action and I'm disinclined to think this happens often if at all.

No, I mean that I'm debating whether or not death with the possibility of eternal oblivion might be better than death with possibility of suffering afterwards. 

Better in what sense? If it's 'eternal oblivion' or what have you why should life before death be desirable? Why should one not go out and cause as much suffering for the living as one wishes (of course one has no objective reason to do so, but, then again there is no objective reason for anything): I've always found it odd how people attempt to use the existence of suffering as an argument against the existence of God and then demand that we should care about their suffering.

There is the idea that any action committed in this finite life should warrant eternal 'suffering', separation from God or what have you, being manifestly unfair and thus arbitrary; as far as I can see this is correct, so I reject the idea and lose no sleep over it (after all its not as if there were good arguments for it in the first place). Although I regret having to say anything offensive to Xtians belief in Original Sin strikes me as beliving being in an improvable and probably incoherent disease in order to belive in its cure.

 

Well I've been thinking that if death is an eternal. dreamless sleep like Socrates, and Cicero said then is that really so bad say compared to the possibility of punishment after death? On a another note why don't you think their are any good arguments for finite actions=eternal punishment?
 

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/18/2016 7:05 pm

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

iwpoe wrote:

AKG wrote:

@iwpoe
This might be unrelated but as a Platonist have you ever worried about where your friends/families who aren't philosophers will end up after they die? I'm asking because I'm struggling with this right now(seriously wondering if eternal oblivion would be better than the afterlife), and wondering how Platonist deal with this.

No. I want the good for all people, but one's soul is ultimately one's achievement. A man reaps what he sows is a primary lesson of life. I can aid people. I cannot do it for them. There is perhaps some kind of wisdom available to the average person. I don't know the ability or state of every soul.

Eternal oblivion is not possible for the immortal soul without special divine action and I'm disinclined to think this happens often if at all.

No, I mean that I'm debating whether or not death with the possibility of eternal oblivion might be better than death with possibility of suffering afterwards. 

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/18/2016 3:47 pm

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

@iwpoe
This might be unrelated but as a Platonist have you ever worried about where your friends/families who aren't philosophers will end up after they die? I'm asking because I'm struggling with this right now(seriously wondering if eternal oblivion would be better than the afterlife), and wondering how Platonist deal with this.

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/16/2016 3:28 pm

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

If individuality is retained during union with the One, will people be able to interact with another, and do stuff?

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/14/2016 6:57 am

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

DanielCC wrote:

Individuality is retained. Plotinus stressed this with his remark 'Why should Socrates cease to be Socrates just because he's gone to the best of all abodes?'.

Interesting. I just have another question. What is union with the One like exactly?
 

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/13/2016 6:56 pm

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

iwpoe wrote:

I think that's an image, and that the punishment is the more immediate punishment of ignorance: movement contrary to one's ends.

I think that reward and punishment are themselves ambiguous notions that are merely aids to understanding. After all, the point is *attaining* the good itself because that's the fulfilment of all of my ends. Rewards are just like little mixed inadequate snippits of the good and punishment is either an external correction of error or retributory disordering of my body.

In Platonism is reaching the Good involve a loss of self due to assimilation sort of like Nirvana or is it individuality retained?
 

Religion » Problem of Hell » 7/13/2016 2:35 pm

AKG
Replies: 75

Go to post

iwpoe wrote:

AKG wrote:

As a Platonist do you personally believe in reincarnation and intermediate reward/punishment between lives?

I believe in some premises that point in that direction, but I know of no direct argument for the position. For instance, if ethics is ultimately about the good of the soul, which I think is true, and the soul is immortal, which I think is true, it would be surpassing strange that death be such that ethics doesn't matter. Soul-sleep, for instance is intelligible but what point is there to getting my soul in order if I may die at any time and my soul loose all activity?

No I don't mean soul sleep. Something like the souls enjoying some time above in either punishment/bliss like in the Myth of Er.
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum