Are DEAD possibilities absolute OR relatively pernicious?

I think the relatively pernicious concept is the religious one, which Sartre refused because of love's failures. After the hopeless state of the living possibility of the lover was transcended for realism, the tragic meaning in the concrete conflict love finally makes no sense, i.e. and is but LIfe.
But it is in the "Realism" that the courage is revealed that the intention of the Other against a love is Concretely to be understood.

This was not Nihilistic because now the strange third other must be a concrete relation as well. The third is violating you to continue to love, or to continue to improve on the living possibilities of US. Is this bigotry? No. Is this a tantamount encouragement to violence? No. But thus being DEAD, it is encouraged from the start for the shamed SLAVE as it were. DEATH instead of slavery BECOMES the absolute. But notice the explanation for the SLAVERY; that is the PROJECT of the initial reason for existential US. Therefore I claim that pernicious religion fights the PROJECT.

 

So by being realistic some would prefer a non-believing attitude; nevertheless God will offer consoling attitudes on various occasions by the eternal representation for more and more possibilities. Shouldn't God claim even in advance that He not be pernicious over the concern of infinite development to idealism of consolation? Thereby, by the pernicious activity of the Mind the individual is needing to find a fulfilling otherness of the conscience for believing in His responsible activity that is not in totality pernicious.

We are essentially fooled by the conceived independent God for our activity.
How does God reveal God for the Responsibleness of the activities. Idealism is somehow a failure for common trust in Love, and again the individual requires perniciousness to bear even Trust at others in the US, grouped per WE. And still a cynic must be idealistic. Nihilism fails, and infinite possibilities break down: don't they in Time? God has those possibilities secretly out and out in the bad design of materialism.

Being realistic in a non-believing which is the true existential attitude is the only way out of materialistic emptiness and ambiguity. Losing touch with believing is the difficulty of freedom, but we must not believe and is it to trust their opposed beliefs OR NOT? Idealism nevertheless, as I have mentioned, allows infinite possibilities to trap free speech but only in conflict with free judgment of the acts to perform or which have been performed. WE need not to judge, and thus firstly we can trust in God revealing God. God above God.

 

Who were you again here at hipforums before your current incarnation? Why'd you come back as Anaximenes? Did the meanies axe you?!

 

you cannot avoid causing harm by denying reason.

i for one, am congenitally incapable of trusting anything that would demand doing so.

whether it calls itself a religion, a nation, an ideology, or doesn't call itself anything, i am still incapable of doing so.

i believe there are all sorts of neat wonderful invisible things that give great hugs.
i do not believe they micro-manage, are infallible, hierarchical, nor at war with anything.
but i do believe they have left it entirely up to ourselves, to avoid ourselves causing harm.

(and yes EVERY prejudice of EVERY kind, IS a denial of reason)

 

Nobody refers to the possibilities of change of oneself for the dutiful change of evaluated facts in the being of the confronted world. Do we like what we see of the world for the change shown of the judged people's Value? That is why Heidegger wrote reason is the greatest enemy of thought. But it is like people confronting you or someone with their facts to again and again despair you or me that the world isn't showing likeable Love.

Was that a Whitney Houston song?

 

all of these names of people have nothing to do with the matters they discus.

of all the many things that are wrong in this world, there is not a single one that is not the result of the denial of reason.

as for reason opposing thought, someone is using one or both terms in some manor i am unfamiliar with.

(and what the hell is a "dead possibility"? this is a concatenation of terms of which i can make no sense what so ever.)