|Originally posted by Lews |
Lira, what the fuck is it asking me?
Well, it's asking you that if you regard yourself as a non-religious person, you should state what you regard as the most comprehensive reality that frames or transcends your own existence and describe what you take to be its essential features or attributes
I wouldn't take the Cartesian route because if you do/did, you're bound to face the same problems René did, reason why much of the most interesting philosophy of the previous century is essentially anti-Cartesian (this is true of both existentialism and pragmatism, for example).
The viable solutions I see are:
Late, I know, but I was unconscious in my bed when you posted the question
- Regard the question as being nonsensical: You can always say that there's no "most comprehensive reality" as reality is in general pretty comprehensive (then you go on to define reality) and it's not exactly something that can (be) transcend(ed).
- Go metaphysical: Pick your favourite natural metaphysics and try to stand for it. James' "Neutral Monism/Experiential Pluralism" and/or Davidson's "Anomalous Monism" would be two possible starting points... and build your arguments from there. This is sort of what you did, I believe.
- Combine both approaches: Regard the question as being nonsensical and metaphysically destroy supernatural metaphysics
Edit: Always go berserk on language when people talk about religion. It's quite easy to show how religion depends on language more than on anything else.
|Originally posted by Moongoose |
Make some outrageous shit up, and when/if you get an F sue for religious persecution.
That'd be great