T
tonyrey
Guest
Good question! I think it is more accurate to **describe **something as infinite - although “some” suggests it is limited in some respect! Can you think of “something” that is infinite?
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I don’t see why the word definition has to limit that which we are describing? Perhaps you mean that we cannot make positive statements about God, but only negative ones? For example God is not material and thus has no definable limits in terms of physics, because physical limits are meaningless when applied to God. God is non-physics or non-material. But to say that God is non-material is not to make a direct positive statement about God himself but rather it is defining God according to what God doesn’t have rather than what God is. Thus when we use words to define God we are using those words analogously as opposed to univocally? But what happens when we say that God exists; surely we cannot say that God is more than existence? In which case it would appear that we are making a positive statement about Gods nature. Or maybe I am mistaking the limits of logical inference with consistent statements about things. A statement is not necessarily an inference to the absolute ontological nature of the thing described?
This is a difficult issue for many people and it is one that doesn’t seem to be yet settled.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I don’t see why the word definition has to limit that which we are describing? Perhaps you mean that we cannot make positive statements about God, but only negative ones? For example God is not material and thus has no definable limits in terms of physics, because physical limits are meaningless when applied to God. God is non-physics or non-material. But to say that God is non-material is not to make a direct positive statement about God himself but rather it is defining God according to what God doesn’t have rather than what God is. Thus when we use words to define God we are using those words analogously as opposed to univocally? But what happens when we say that God exists; surely we cannot say that God is more than existence? In which case it would appear that we are making a positive statement about Gods nature. Or maybe I am mistaking the limits of logical inference with consistent statements about things. A statement is not necessarily an inference to the absolute ontological nature of the thing described?
This is a difficult issue for many people and it is one that doesn’t seem to be yet settled. To define literally means “to end completely” - which amounts to distinguishing one thing from another by its limits. But, as you point out, physical limits do not apply to immaterial reality. So the fundamental nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love is unlimited - which is not surprising because they converge in God!
The problem with us - human beings - is that we are spiritual and physical. This suggests that we can be defined in some ways and not in others. We certainly cannot understand our intangible nature as well as our physical nature. That alone means it is indefinable - as far as our knowledge is concerned anyway…
J
John7
Guest
my ‘self’ I define as a soul and body…until death, then,
well not sure…in some sort of soul ‘state’ until the resurrection of the body.
CCC 360
Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”: O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God . . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end; . . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.
J
jpbathon
Guest
define |diˈfīn|To define literally means “to end completely” - which amounts to distinguishing one thing from another by its limits. But, as you point out, physical limits do not apply to immaterial reality. So the fundamental nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love is unlimited - which is not surprising because they converge in God!
The problem with us - human beings - is that we are spiritual and physical. This suggests that we can be defined in some ways and not in others. We certainly cannot understand our intangible nature as well as our physical nature. That alone means it is indefinable - as far as our knowledge is concerned anyway…
verb trans. ]
1 state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of : the contract will seek to define the client’s obligations.
• give the meaning of (a word or phrase), esp. in a dictionary.
• make up or establish the character of : for some, the football team defines their identity.
2 mark out the boundary or limits of : [as adj. ] ( defined) clearly defined boundaries.
• make clear the outline of; delineate : she defined her eyes by applying eyeshadow.
This is straight from the dictionary in my computer. You make a good point tonyrey. Perhaps we are all confused about the meaning of the word define. For me, I was taking it literally as ontological explanation or description. I see now where my problem was.
Therefore, I don’t believe we could define ourselves, because of what you stated tonyrey, MindOverMatter2, and John7. We are both spiritual and material, therefore part of us transcends the possibility of complete ontological explanation, making it impossible to define ourselves by the definition of the word.
Leave it to philosophy to answer the question “define yourself” with “you can’t, or at least not fully.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are right! Many problems and disagreements are the result of confusion about the precise meaning of words especially when we are discussing spiritual realities. We cannot possibly define ourselves because we don’t even know what we are - which is not surprising given that we are made in the image of God!define |diˈfīn|
verb trans. ]
1 state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of : the contract will seek to define the client’s obligations.
• give the meaning of (a word or phrase), esp. in a dictionary.
• make up or establish the character of : for some, the football team defines their identity.
2 mark out the boundary or limits of : [as adj. ] ( defined) clearly defined boundaries.
• make clear the outline of; delineate : she defined her eyes by applying eyeshadow.
This is straight from the dictionary in my computer. You make a good point tonyrey. Perhaps we are all confused about the meaning of the word define. For me, I was taking it literally as ontological explanation or description. I see now where my problem was.
Therefore, I don’t believe we could define ourselves, because of what you stated tonyrey, MindOverMatter2, and John7. We are both spiritual and material, therefore part of us transcends the possibility of complete ontological explanation, making it impossible to define ourselves by the definition of the word.
Leave it to philosophy to answer the question “define yourself” with “you can’t, or at least not fully.”
This is where the materialist slips up… “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio”.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
Followers of Shamanism, Buddhists, Taoists, and many other systems of philosophy / belief have long agreed that the question of “who am i” is one of the most important in the spiritual path. Many followers have succeed in answering that question and because of that, they understand much more of the objective reality surrounding them, one of the most interesting understandings i find is an “internal” moral understanding of what is right and what is wrong…
In my opinion defining yourself, figuring out who you are is by no means an easy question to answer. You could make lists of attributes or achievements, you could give a physical description of the body, you could even list off certain personality traits to run through an equation to predict what decision a person would make given a specific situation. Though would any of these be a complete definition?
Who you are cant be defined simply by lists, equations, or even descriptions. It includes paradigms, beliefs, emotions, philosophies, potential and many more im sure i cant think of, and how they all shift and what potential they have to shift into as “time” passes. chuckles a bit if you feel you can sum all that up in a few sentences, feel free!
- Status