Onthological analysis text of atheism.

[Gonzalo Jerez]

Onthological analysis text of atheism.

1.-Previous questions.

The fuss propelled by “illustrious” and fanatical atheists is ominous at the meaning of his ad nauseam irrationality. Orthodox atheist usually says that god –his god- does not exist. Is feasible to negate anything which is implicit affirmed? This stand is manifestly twisting towards greatest virtue man has got, reason, because of to think A´ involves that A´ exists –like a thinking-. Spanish knight-errant, Don Miguel de Unamuno, composed a very reasonable and ironical poem which is called Atheist praying[1]

Hear my plea, you nonexistent god, and in the void assemble all the matters i entreat,

you who never leave poor man without the consolation of deceit.

The further from my mind you are, the clearer i recall,

what sweetened my sad nights, the peaceful counsel of my soul.

Reality, on you, my lord, is too short in the sleeve.

And too tight in the seat, my lord- and this is why i grieve:

When you get down to prey, next time you do it

you'll rip the fabric of space and time as we knew it

and that will reveal your vast fundament to me!

You can contemplate at that poem the imperious irrationality which mark orthodox [2] atheist and how really this atheist –who Unamuno is alluding- confers to traditional monotheist god full moral force. I have told atheism is a stand, I pull back that and I change it by fashion –like Marxism, Fascism or Scienciology-, thus is better than "stand".

After than French blood orgy –also known like French Revolution- man discovered (!!!) reason. I have scandalized because of commonly at History class´ at Institute –even University- has been rushed by bureaucratic thinkers which utters euphemistic after dinner speech like before this sentence I have referred. Not has perhaps lived many thinkers –stricto sensu- so lucidness´ like Tales, Anaximenes and Anaximandro, Aristotle or after these, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Ramón Lull, Francis Bacon, Leibniz or John Locke [3]?

The blood orgiastics -advocates to freedom toward themselves, but not for the other like, for instance, Alexis de Tocqueville- were so few extremists, so few believers in themselves, in his reason that even someone heard christian “sacred” Word when they had half leg into his tomb and rest of his body doing fire chapels…[4] Freedom must be extensive totally, allowing also the Right which gives permission to man to pray five moments at all days to Mecca’s direction, or the Right which gives permission to men to go chapel at Dominus Die –even if they are mistaken!

Now the master lines -by way of I have planted the problem of the irrationality at atheism and his formal inconsistence- have been traced. I will do one question which I also will response at third point (at second point I am going to build the rails which I will drive this consideration).

How can we be really atheist excluding all suggestion of irrationality and dogmatism?

2.- Point of view.

Atheism is in search for to negate the Idea which is referred to the first causes motor and which is alluded to last aim by to christian man (I have said “christian” because of, casually or not, much of atheists are dreadfully friendly towards people of the satanic and Mohammedanism sect). The being leans over realize one self, the being leans over know tribulations or variations that at oneself are being. That is to say, the being is disquiet. In order to think is unavoidable being cognisant of oneself. Being is to knowledge oneself. In order to reflect is necessary to be convinced of a thinking can not be retained. The thinking is not stillness. To think, the cogitatio activity should be directed by –and from- oneself, from ego’s profundity to the radical reality [5]. The thinking, then, be realized of oneself. Ergo, being is thinking. Certainly, if I think A, the A thinking if truth be told exists. Cogitatio est.

La pensée existe, il est, puis j'existe, je suis.[6]

This quote means that at thinker’s activity are inevitables two fundamental essences: A reflection object –or objective- which we will use with the propose of to evolve –or with the intend of to start the thinking-… and a thinking-subject or a thinker.

Whoever knows anything of Aristotle’s Metaphysical also has knowledge of that by virtue of thinker’s activity, the thinker always seeks for the origins and causes which steers the Universe (Does really Universe exists or is that mere result of onerous alienation of individuals everyone thinking-world, which are thought by one self?) or the happen of a lonely/isolated event [7] equally than a movement or state change, something which is located inside of being (Is this an equivocated and caustic presumption?) of someone more Universe’s category.

After that, I am going to lean on my divan with the proposition of to subdue by question which was done at first time with the objective to break the comatose being.

3.Some answers.

Well, I remain something: I need to brighten a basic premise, it is referred to metaphysical and to other less things.

-We have, without any exception, a physical reality –it would be perfectly verified by virtue of, e.g., Indetermination Principe of Karl Werner Heisenberg, or any other use of recent Quantum Mechanical- and ideal reality. I have said ideal because of it is a reality of mental ideas which are extrinsics to physics already commented.

Both are substantials because both have a primitive substance. At one may be quarks and at other are abstract concepts [8], both might be verified by virtue of logic or scientific methods. Ideal reality and physical reality objectively exist -without doubt-. I even might say that they are analogous because we know, according to kinetic materiel conception, bodies has its particles disposed by dint of depending if they have more or less space (What is this -space?) between themselves, they will have supplementary simplicity to be –more or less- breakable.

The sheet of paper on I am now writing is upon wood writer desk, is substantially the same which I have from few years to currently. Superficial particles are franticly beating this sheet of paper in quest of the sheet is always hanged on desk. The same occurs at thinking. When we have been developing a seriousness and responsible reflection its Idea will be very impressive to people who didn’t know about it and because of that he will need been led by Idea’s father for few time with the propose of the ignorant –on lovely sense of that word- understand it.

When strengthest notes at Ideal Symphony are located in everyone treaties´ paragraph this idea will be able to fight against whichever other idea. Then, we can see that with sufficient explosive charge, we can knock down a skyscraper (Oh my god! All except that, skyscrapers are sacred!). It is not same to miser knife because of it accumulate on his ridge necessary potency to slant a living, if we compare knife with an Ideal thing, it is equally to political discourse. Much but nothing.

The atheism defence has to be from logic and this I now have said is an exactly foolishness. Not?

At Martin Lutero´s Spring Bible he used gottlos [9] to designate atheism. “Without-god” involves necessary “with-god” which makes me to formulate the next premise:

If it has “with-god”, god take action on someone.

My word intentions are too clear and if someone analyse me with logical method, he would question himself “Why he talks about god when it does not exist, in his opinion?”. This interrogation is very proper. Before this I say you I had never written about atheism fashion which is accepted by atheists with inscrutable dogmatism[10] which leans at to negate his god –the god who they have created- but I had written about political theory, philosophy, theology [11] and about other matters. I am not writing about christian’s –or other- god but about atheist’s god. I will never try to persuade a god believer that god –his nothing- does not exist because it has not individual –not collective or common- sense and because of if I believe in god is because I want it exists and not because it is provable –or not, I remember that christian´s scholastic worked a lot for demonstrate it… or not-, I am going to say more, if it is confirmed, I would lost my faith.

This last point was to be for the proposition done at commencement but I think it now has been resolved, maybe the deficiency I have created the lack of a new world –the concept now has been created- which define this new stand non atheist –non believer in god, only on ego, me- because atheism is really illogical. Can a objectivist be dogmatically friendly to a word which has not logical sense?

Maybe we need a new word, maybe is necessary eliminate the previous –atheism-. Yes, this is, we must not to be preoccupied to which does not exist. When I was a child I was afraid because of darkness, now I know in darkness only can be stand gods and evil demons.

______________________________________________________________________

NOTES:

[1]Spanish versión of Atheist praying:

Oye mi ruego Tú, Dios que no existes, y en tu nada recoge estas mis quejas, Tú que a los pobres hombres nunca dejas sin consuelo de engaño. No resistes a nuestro ruego y nuestro anhelo vistes. Cuando Tú de mi mente más te alejas, más recuerdo las plácidas consejas con que mi ama endulzóme noches tristes. ¡Qué grande eres, mi Dios! Eres tan grande que no eres sino Idea; es muy angosta la realidad por mucho que se expande para abarcarte. Sufro yo a tu costa, Dios no existente, pues si Tú existieras existiría yo también de veras.I give really thanks to tndby because of he has translated into English this poem without I solicit him this.

[2] I am really reiterative with orthodox atheism because the end of this brief article is to revise the classic or orthodox atheism not for give impulse to a new atheism but for to make evident that sometimes we believe we are doing a rationalist act when it have not got any logic and it turns on fashion.

[3] At the moment I only recognize a little debt to Aristotle –Organon and slightly to Poetics- and in a minor part to John Locke.

[4] We must remember the Françoise-Marie de Arouet´s –Voltaire- case. When he is going to die, he had heard the words of his nephew, a priest.

[5] You ought to read "The issue of our time" at Lesson III of "What is philosophy?" (maybe you can buy it at Http://www.amazon.com )wich was written by José Ortega y Gasset and you also ought to read "The radical reality is our life" at Lesson XI, same book and writer.

[6] "Discours de la méthode pur bien conduire la raison et chercher la verité dans las sciences." (René Descartes)

[7]I can not believe a lonely success, without any connection with another act because of man engenders other man, Espeusipo´s –a greek thinker- semen proceeded from the man and not proceeded from nothing, the man is act and potency.

[8] I think necessary to mention a poet who is called Jorge Guillén which at his Cántico –sometimes it seems more a mathematical treaties than a poetical compendium because of ir metric, form and thematic- stipules something very curious –etymological: searcher-:

“Abstractions? Not, contacts of a man with his planet.”

“¿Abstracciones? No, contactos de un hombre con su planeta.”

[9] Literally, gottlos –a German word- means “without-god”. For instance, at Proverbial Book we can read:

“Atheists´ ways are obscures”.(op. cit. IV:19)

[11] God does not exist, say him, and he seems like the child who has the work of find the children who plays to hide themselves, and when he is counting back to go is losing his time because into a few seconds his friends are hidden. This child is obligated to count few minutes when on few seconds his friends are really hidden.

------------

POST SCRIPTUM: I solicite you, if you see gramatical -or other- faults, comunicate me them. Michael Stuart is helping me to correct it, but you can help me. Thanks.

[tndbay]

Hear my request you, nonexistent God, and in your nothingness gather these, my complaints, you, who never leave poor men without the consolation of deceit.

You do not resist our requests, and our yearning you clothe. (?)

When you are farther from my mind, the more i recall the placid counsel with which my (ama? = alma, soul?) sweetened my sad nights.

How great you are, my God! You are so great you are but an Idea; reality is too narrow, however much it may expand to include you.

I suffer at your coast, nonexisting God, for if you existed, i would truly too.

(ojala que se mejore pronto...)

once more but this time w/ unlicensed poetic swerving ...

Hear my plea, you nonexistent god, and in the void assemble all the matters i entreat,

you who never leave poor man without the consolation of deceit.

The further from my mind you are, the clearer i recall,

what sweetened my sad nights, the peaceful counsel of my soul.

Reality, on you, my lord, is too short in the sleeve.

And too tight in the seat, my lord- and this is why i grieve:

When you get down to prey, next time you do it

you'll rip the fabric of space and time as we knew it

and that will reveal your vast fundament to me!