"God, turn to us and give us life."
Deus tu conversus vivificabis nos. It seems the conversation is circular, like this or that, as this or that, and it goes around.
There was a Portuguese philosopher who had studied his Aristotle and then after all that came to the conclusion that nothing is known. He would ask "quid"? then answer, "quod nihil scitur". It was a type of dark humor he had or social indifference. But he was always left with the circle of it.
The circular argument is not really a fallacy, although sometimes people think or say that it is. They dismiss the circular argument as not sufficient, but it can be sufficient, and it's the first argument of a great order, since it's also the first argument of the first definition. Without the first definition, there wouldn't be the first premise, since the premise involved the definition and so forth.
Like you know, an early definition for a circle is altitude. The cave men recognized this, that altitude can be a homonym for circle, and some could complain that when they want to know what altitude is, if the only answer was another circle, that that's not enough, that's not an answer, because a circle could be low, even as low as the bottom, and low is not high.
Well, rather not, I would say, and Heaven also fits the definition of supernal. The direction up above to such a circle that would be like that. There's a lot of horizontal interference down here on Earth in the sublunar realm, that's lower, for sure, so don't forget the vertical or at least that there is the vertical connection, even from the highest to the lowest, because high and low always have an "atomic" connection, right on the other side of each other all the time and so forth.
So the way I see it there's no good excuse for social indifference. This I believe.
Topic: How to overcome being socially indifferent? (Read 4000 times)