 
                         20051126.00

     If one wishes to talk to someone about god, one needs to
find an atheist.  A "believer" who finds it in him to talk
about god, displays more even than his irrationality, his
callousness and insensitivity.

     The atheist attests to his insight, that it is
impossible to talk about ones experience, ones understanding
of god, by insisting that god does not exist.  The non-
existence of god is after all undeniable, in precisely the
sense that the non-existence of the objects to which I refer
as being real is undeniable.  In any event, the objects which
one commonly refers to as being real, exist in no dimension
that I am able to define, other than in my imagination, other
than as the representation (die Vorstellung) of such objects
in my mind.  I should be surprised, if anyone would dispute
the assertion that, whatever else he (or it) may or may not
be, god (or the divine) is surely a notion, a figment, a
representation in my thought.  Accordingly the difference
between the atheist and various species of "believers", is
the manner in which they evaluate (interpret) their (mental)
notions of god.

     This sequence of ideas points to the fact, if it does
not indeed constitute proof, that the positivist who scorns
the notion, who disdains the imaginative representation, (der
die Vorstellung ablehnt), the positivist who considers real
only the object which is in fact transcendental, but whose
transcendental nature he denies, might, by virtue of his
willingness to embrace and endorse a reality demonstrably
beyond his grasp, the true philosopher.

     But though the positivist, whose mind frolics innocently
in fantastic pastures of reality which he does not identify
as such and which it can never reach, might appear to be the
true philosopher, ultimately he fails the test, because in
the realm of thought, what matters is the thought itself,
what matters is the apprehension of the process of thinking;
and in that realm the positivist misconstrues his own
thought, repudiates himself, and thereby vitiates all of his
own efforts.

           =======================================

                       20051126.00

     Ueber Gott kann man eigentlich nur mit einem Atheisten
sprechen; ein "Glaeubiger" bezeugt, wenn er ueber Gott
spricht, vielleicht nicht so sehr seine Minderwertigkeit wie
seine Unempfindlichkeit.  (Stumpfheit, Dickfelligkeit)

     Der Atheist bezeugt sein Verstaendnis, dass man ueber
das Gotteserlebnis nicht sprechen _kann_, indem er behauptet,
dass Gott nicht existiert; was dann ja zuletzt auch richtig
ist, in eben dem Sinne, dass das vermeintlich Existierende
auch nicht "existiert", insofern, jedenfalls, als es "nur"
Vorstellung ist.  Ich denke, keiner wird bestreiten, dass
Gott zumindest auch eine Vorstellung ist: die Unterscheidung
zwischen dem Atheisten, und den verschiedenen Sorten von
"Glaeubigen" ist also die Weise in welcher sie ihre
unterschiedlichen Vorstellungen bewerten.

     Diese Gedankenfolge weist also darauf hin, wenn sie
nicht gar beweist, dass der Positivist, dem die Vorstellung
unwirklich, nur das Ding, nur der (transzendentale)
Gegenstand wirklich sein sollte, indem er  dessen
Transzendentalitaet verkennt, dass dieser Positivist der
wahre Philosoph sein moechte.

     Er ist's aber dennoch nicht, weil es sich bei der
Philosophie, weil es sich bei dem Denken, weil es sich im
Bereich des Denkens um das Denken handelt: Und in diesem
Bereich verkennt der Positivist sein eigenes Denken, verkennt
sich selbst, hebt sich also selber auf.

                          * * * * *
Copyright 2005, Ernst Jochen Meyer
