Bootstrap Framework 3.3.6

[Dušan Maljković]

Šta milsite o po meni najbrilijantnijem dokazu za postojanje Boga, koje se pripisuje Tertulijanu?

Natus est Dei Filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est; et mortuus est Dei Filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile.

Rođen je sin božiji: ne stidi se, jer je za stid; i mrtav je sin božiji: sasvim je verovatno, jer je suludo; i sahranjen je vaskrsao: sigurno je, jer je nemoguće.

[Orlando the Lady]

Svakako ne moze biti najbrilijantniji. Nije logicki najuspeliji.
Ali, kako fizikom nekako doguramo do granice, i onjusimo metafiziku, ne mozemo nista drugo da uradimo nego da "ostavimo svaku nadu za sobom".
Dok smo jos u fizici/Logosu/kako god to inace nazivali, mozemo samo da ustuknemo pred ovakvim recima. Gnosticnost izbija iz svakog segmenta. I ponovo se vracamo na isto: verovati ili ne verovati.

[Kiborg]

Ne postoji dokaz o postojanju boga.

To je samo još jedna filozofska onanija.

[polarlicht4.1]

"It seems paradoxical that Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy, so avowedly atheist, so utterly materialist, and so ecstatically inhuman, should being us back to that most human quality, trust or belief. Why then is belief necessary? Because belief in this world is the atheist, materialist, and inhuman condition of its sensation. Because in the end we cannot think this inhuman world, it is precisely what cannot be thought, and cannot be represented, and yet it is which our deranged senses are forever feeling.

To return to Cinema 2, and one of Deleuze's most beautiful passages, he describes the spiritual automaton, (but it is equally Nietzsche's Dionysus, Spinoza's man of beatitude, or the painter him or herself - Pollock 'in' his painting) the one who has received a shock, and has seen a vision of the world in its infinite becoming. What to do in the face of such an image? Of course we react, we feel and we see, but no longer with eyes which can represent, or a mind which can explain. "The spiritual automaton is in the psychic situation of the seer," Deleuze writes, "who sees better and further than he can react, that is, think. Which, then, is the subtle way out? To believe, not in a different world, but in a link between man and the world, in love or life, to believe in this as in the impossible, the unthinkable, which none the less cannot but be thought" (C2, 170/221). The visionary sees more than his or her humanity can bear, the inhuman univocity of the reciprocal construction/expression of the seer and the world. Here all organic complementarities between man and world are broken, and must be replaced with something else, with belief. There is, and Deleuze is at this most affirmative here, "the erasure of the unity of man and the world, in favour of a break which now leaves us with only a belief in this world" (C2, 188/245)."

- preuzeto iz Zepke, S., Art as Abstract Machine: Ontology and Aesthetics in Deleuze and Guattari, str. 227-228.