Hello everyone,

I just wanted to share, I opened an Etsy shop a few months ago and many of the paintings you see in my gallery can be found for sale there (originals, not prints) as well as information on commissions: www.etsy.com/shop/OrchidofAnti…

You're welcome to take a look!

Best Wishes

...

The Best of Puppet Narcissism

I made myself a puppet,
The best a man can be,

For no one is as crafty,
As cunning, wise as thee,

On slender strings you swing,
They reach up to the sky,

You move your arms with ease,
On paper kites you fly,

Like a music box you sing,
In you master's praise,

So your joints are greased,
For the rest of your days.

A poem I wrote inspired by an old sketch:

On the Train to Madness

On the train to madness, the scratching wheels roll,
On the train to madness, the howling winds will blow,

The forest parts with broken hearts,
Shattered pumps and glass,

Are buried, buried, buried,
Deep under the tinsel grass.

We dig all night and dig all day,
So our souls escape the fray,

Golden locks beneath the rocks,
Lavender lace and roses,

Our lady shriek, no more she speaks,
Their grim faces and contorted poses,

On the train to madness, the scratching wheels roll,
On the train to madness, the howling winds will blow,

Out the window I do gaze,
My beating heart, my chest ablaze,

And in the distance a mirage,
The wheels stop, a sabotage,

Raven wolves of amber eyes,
Manes black as sin,

Run as one tries,
Run as one flies,

On their skirts they trip,
On their poisons, sip,

Only save those of their kin,
Avoiding jealousy with a pin.

On his face the deadly grin.

On the train to madness, the scratching wheels roll,
On the train to madness, the howling winds will blow,

 

 

Summary of pp. 175-178: Sextus Empiricus - On God

 

What is being proven?

The main point of Sextus’ theory as discussed in this segment of the text is that it is necessary for dogmatists to suspend judgment on the question of Gods existence because universal proof cannot be found for the premises and conclusion favouring either side.

 Why is it being proven?

Sextus attempts to prove his point that the dogmatists, those who fervently believe that the existence of God is an absolute truth, are rash in making their conclusion and must consider their beliefs logically. By doing so they would come to the conclusion that God’s existence cannot be known for certain. This is done by presenting mutually conflicting dogmatic claims and considering the premises affirming and denying the existence of God.

What are the premises?

Sextus begins his work by taking on the mindset of those who: “affirm undomatically the existence of gods, reverence gods, and affirm that they are possessed of foreknowledge[1]”.  People who affirm the existence of a god undomatically do the following: they hold their view to be relative, without passion or emotion in denying or affirming it. His other premises are as follows:

    ·         People’s conceptions of God does not come from God, otherwise the dogmatists would be in agreement when defining him. As such, “the existence of God is not self-evident”[2] and therefore requires demonstration.

    ·         “When we form notions of objects we ought to conceive of their substance[3]”, in other words, when thinking of something in existence we must have an image of their form in mind in order to assign attributes to it. Some dogmatists hold the view that God has a physical form and place in which he exists, others believe the opposite, demonstrating that God’s attributes are non-evident.

    ·         To conceive of something ‘imperishable and blessed’ is an equally relative matter, given that ‘those ignorant of the substance of God…shall be unable to learn and conceive of the properties belonging to him”[4]. What is virtuous and what is blessed is also non-evident.

    ·         Demonstrating the existence of God can only be done by using self-evident or non-evident proofs. But because God’s existence is not self-evident, what proves his existence cannot be self-evident, otherwise both would have already been proven simultaneously. Because disagreement among dogmatists exists, proof of God must be non-evident.

    ·         If one were to use non-evident proof, this proof would also require proof, leading to an endless chain of non-evident proofs attempting to prove each other to infinity.  If God cannot be proven by evident nor non-evident proofs, then his existence is inapprehensible.

    ·         A second line of argument analyzes the beliefs affirming or denying that God has forethought. Forethought may be interpreted as prudence and deliberation for the future. If we were to exhaust the possibilities, God must have some combination (or lack) of forethought, power, and will.

    ·         Because there is evil in the world it can be concluded that God is either weak, does not have forethought for all things, or is not willing and therefore malicious. To say God is weak or malicious is impiety. Therefore God has either has no forethought, power, or will.

    ·         Conclusion: If God’s existence cannot be proven by evident nor non-evident proof and if nothing in the world is the product of God’s forethought, then there is no way to apprehend him, given that this existence is not self-evident in itself or from his products.

 

Does the conclusion logically follow from those premises?

If God were to have forethought and power but not will, this does not necessarily mean he is malicious to allow ‘evil’ into the world. One view against this is that only by overcoming adversary does one appreciate his blessings and develops courage and wisdom. Furthermore, whether or not he is benevolent or malicious is secondary to whether or not he exists.

Even if the case were that God does not have absolute forethought, power, or will, that does not necessarily disprove his existence. To have an imperfect God that creates imperfect beings would not disprove his existence, nor would holding impious views against him. Furthermore, the lack of agreement among dogmatists only shows that the human mind is unable to apprehend God’s existence, rather than that he does not exist. Just as some need glasses to see, an imperfect mind or senses would also fail to apprehend self-evident tangible proof. Still Sextus’s overall conclusion holds that one is forced to suspend judgment as to whether or not God exists.