- Are you innately Good or Evil? (Your Nature, is it Good or Bad?)
- What is Life?
- How did the Universe come into existence?
- Is there Absolute Truth?
- What happens when you die?
The order of these must seem weird, but the 1st question is the most fundamental question. The answer has shaped and will shape your answers/filter for the other questions.
The misconception in life is that we can just talk about anything and everything objectively. We are prompted to have open minds, yet those who demand open minds and proclaim open minds are rarely open to ideas that they disagree with.
Platonic status only occurs in philosophical narratives, much like infinity occurring in mathematics. Subtract all the even number from 0 to Infinity and you are left with infinity, and it has the same amount of numbers (infinity) that it had previously.
There is no true platonic state, as we are not wired that way. If we are thinking about or of something, then we have already developed both voluntary and involuntary judgement about or of the thing, based on our worldview and personal philosophy. For Example:
A platonic (relational) kiss is a myth. It invariably means more (at the present or the future) to one person or the other, it can’t mean equally nothing to both parties; something can not be meaningless by definition. A kiss is a physical expression of affection, and by definition can not be impartial or indifferent. A handshake can be impartial, or a greeting (a greeting kiss is impartial because it is culturally the same as a handshake and by definition is universally a greeting). A greeting kiss is not meant to expression invitations to a more physical relationship; a relational or intimate kiss, however, is.
We can act and say we love things, we hate, act and say we hate things we love. We can also reject ideas that are good for us (exercise and eating healthy) and proclaim we don’t care about “good food”, but only foods we “want” to eat…that is until we have high cholesterol, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, hyper-tension, etc. After diagnosis of disease we reconsider our previous thought life.
Our world views are steeped in how we view ourselves and others around us. Consider this, if we begin to talk about Pro-Life or Choice, the listener presumes that you have a solid foundation of how you arrived at your answer, but you may not know how you arrived at that answer. Any discussion following your personal opinion would be pointless. Questions formulated from a presuppositional stance of Pro-Life would be lost, because the answers are formulated from a Pro-Choice platform would not follow. It is an argument that can’t be won…unless there is a common starting ground.
It causes a great impasse in relationships and conversations, and it is the main reason that politics and religion are so difficult to talk about among friends and family. If I am asking the questions, I am presupposing there is a God and He is Truth, and if an atheist is asking the question they are presupposing there is no God and Science is the authority on Truth. We would have to find a starting point like, “Does God, or Could God exist” . This would allow us to see if our presupposition have value or weight. If I can prove God using science and philosophy, or if I can proved that atheism doesn’t follow from science but follows from scientism (naturalism-an interpretation of science that presupposes there is no God), and the atheist can not prove God doesn’t exist or that atheism follows from science, then we have defused a great deal of meaningless banter and insults and the atheist will have to reconsider his/her worldview. Now, if he/she can prove the atheism follows from science and that there is no God, then I will have to reconsider my worldview, but at least we are not misunderstood and trying to protect our wounded, unstated presuppositions.
If presuppositions are not vetted with true claims about the proclaimed proposition and persons simply engages in to debate, they are starting the debate in the middle of the arguments. It is nearly impossible at that point to go back and try and establish presuppositions if you have already accepted the other presuppositions and parameters for Truth; it is in short, a lost cause.
If a person says, “Evangelicals are religious extremist!”, and you reply, “At least they have some sort of morals and family values!” Your response has denoted that you accept they person’s presuppositions regarding Evangelicals, as in who are they and what determines an evangelical. You have accepted the persons presuppositions about religion and religious extremist, and what is considered extreme. You have no idea what this person means when they verbally vomit out phrases like that, and if you engage you are agreeing with ideologies and philosophies that are more than likely false, incoherent, and biased. And if the person responds to your comment, then he/she is accepting your presuppositions that those who aren’t religious extremists don’t have morals or family values. Who are your talking about? What groups are included in your responses and what groups are you excluding? It is unstated. If it is unstated, it can be misunderstood by both one who holds the presupposition and the one it’s being expressed to.
Next post in this series – Essay: Are you innately Good or Evil?
If you find any syntax, grammar, contextual, and/or content errors please email me at email@example.com. Thanks.