• Badass_panda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s potentially worse than useful and actively confusing.

    Welcome to philosophy! I’d recommend reading Spinoza, he lays it out very intelligently.

    It’s simultaneously a way of disproving the existence of God (he was kicked out of his Jewish community and hounded around Europe by the Catholics for his atheism), and a way of replacing it with the concept of the infinite / of the universe. Lends itself to meditation and contemplation, but not to any kind of religious dogma.

    BTW, the concept has nothing to do with love, or the fundamental aspect of humanity, etc. It’s just infinite extension, which encompasses every aspect of humanity, and of everything else.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m aware. I was giving another example that has been used by other philosophers, but I can’t remember who off the top of my head. It just doesn’t seem useful to me. It seems more like a way to continue using the word for nostalgic reasons but without the meaning we know the word to have. It isn’t wrong by any means, it just muddies the water of what is being discussed.

      God is pretty much universally known to refer to a being. Using it to refer to a non-being, to me, seems to be a purposeful attempt to not have to accept the challenges to the concept but continue on with what you believed anyway.