The Invisible, Uncreated world of Being, Makes More Sense than the Material World of Becoming

Plato, Kant, Thomas, Augustine, and Jesus all posited a (post) hellenic worldview whereby behind everything in the physical world, there existed ideas, the non-material, the noumenal, God. Something Other, something not like what we see. From our life experience and our own human being/existence, we know that Being must exist.

Plato posited that there was a realm of the Forms whereby every essence existed in a non-material state. This means that when I use the word "is", the concept is a universal one that people can actually understand. The fact that no one can define "Being" is proof that we use in every language concepts that are beyond our explanation.

Crazily enough one deity is rumored to have said "I am who I am" - interpretted by many as "I am Being", and that for every human being, it is possible to say of this deity "in Him we live and move and breathe and have our being".

If Being (invisible world) is the whiteboard, Becoming (visible material world) is the writing on it. Without Being, Nietzsche rightly said, we can only speak in verbs. There are no nouns. You are not essentially anything, you are an accidental cluster of atoms constantly in flux until you die.... oh, and by the way. You weren't caused.... figure that out.

Accepting that all of existence and your own personal life does not follow logic (because logic necessitates causation which would require an existant non-material 'spiritual' entity to have created time and matter), accepting such a worldview would mean that everything is meaningless, there is no truth, there can be no true emotion between people. There can only be chemistry and biology and physics, and again remember none of those sciences can follow any pattern as this would imply logic or meaning. That is one alternative. It's as I've said objectively illogical (as it would be since logic doesn't exist). It's rather like a paranoid person who says all the world is conspiring against them, and then another person trying to explain to them that this is not true. The more the rational person explains, the more the paranoid person believes they are vindicated. (I stole that one from Chesterton).

For the rest of humanity, that isn't ready to kiss away Love, Meaning, Human Rights, and Reason, there exists another possibility in the invisible world. That's personally why I'd rather be a Platonist, or an Idealist, or an Aristotelian, or a Thomist, or a Jew, or a Deist, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Morman, or a worshipper of the Flying Spagetti Monster (provided he was immaterial) than be a materialist.

For the philosopher, Materialism is a joke, the phrase "the material world is the only reality" disproves materialism (language implies reason, which implies non-material principles, more "invisible" reality). Similarly a "God's eye view" of the world that claims God doesn't exist is impossible, as it would be a universal statement in a universe without universal truth! (oft repeated but true nonetheless).

Thus one can say "I don't think the (realm of the Forms/God/Noumenal/Ideal) exists" but the statement must be understood as an illogical claim, based on either emotion or unjustified opinion.

Humanities: 1 , Material Sciences: 0

What Exists? The Senses and Reason? Thomas, Berkeley, Kant

I'm trying to figure out whether I believe the world actually exists because I see it and experience it with my senses (Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle/Realism), or whether I think it exists and so it exists, and that the only real thing I can be sure of is that I think, and so existence can only really be linked to thinking. Thus for universal existence, there must be a mind conceiving of the world all at once (thoughts in the mind of God) (Berkeley/Plato/Exaggerated Realism).

To me exaggerated realism leads to neoplatonic and protestant errors in it's emphasis on the mind, whereas empiricism is kind of baseless (why should we trust the senses) and leads to existentialism and postmodernism (which might not be a bad thing, I'm still figuring this out).

Where this is relevant is kind of funny. I was walking around Brock yesterday and I saw a girl bending over with alot of cleavage and I wondered if that was a thought in the mind of God, or a sensical discovery. I am starting to appreciate the physical world of phenomena and senses more and more (not in the way mentioned above per se), but just trying to sit down and actually experience life. To realize my body is ME and that I'm actually travelling at ridiculous speeds on a rock spinning in the universe. Realizing that this life we live now is so important and beautiful, but at the same time - as Pascal says - "the most fragile thing in the world".

The more I read about Immanuel Kant, the more I like the guy, obviously he has some problems, but his theory is that we experience, and then we reason which acts kind of like the final sense (if I've understood him properly). As I watch home movies of me as an infant and realize that I wasn't reasoning yet, I think it shows that Berkeley is out and that it's either Thomas or Kant or someone else I find. Kant said something that I've been thinking about for a while now to see if I agree with it: "to be is to do"

Any Thoughts?