I am Jeffrey Williams, and welcome you to my blog. Most know me as a simple semiliterate biker who lives somewhere under a bridge – an occupation that affords ample time for reflection on things in the world. My primary interest is our time of vertigo as announced by the Madman in Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft and poetic thinking of Sein.
This blog concerns thoughts, poems and arguments on Being, philosophy and our place in cosmos. All comments are welcome.
Please click on Blog Feed above for all articles.
Twitter: @jswillims21
Email: toolateforthegods@gmail.com
Wir kommen für die Götter zu spät und zu früh für das Sein, dessen angefangenes Gedicht ist der Mensch.
Martin Heidegger: Aus der Erfahrung des Denkens
Part 2 of Conversation with Simon Egopart on Metaphysical Idealism
This is Simon Egopart’s response to my last comment and again my latest response: First of all, thanks for your constructive and respectful attitude. It clearly is not your intent to score cheap points or to ridicule, and I appreciate that. Obviously I agree with the statement that there is a stark difference between dreamContinue reading “Part 2 of Conversation with Simon Egopart on Metaphysical Idealism”
Conversation with the Belgian Author Simon Egopart on Idealism as Cosmic Consciousness
This is the initiation of a conversation between Simon Egopart and me on the idea of Cosmic Consciousness and Idealism, which began as a conversation about the metaphysics of Bernardo Kastrup. I will post here the opening of the conversation written by Mr. Egopart, and will respond in the comment section. Mr. Egopart’ s writingsContinue reading “Conversation with the Belgian Author Simon Egopart on Idealism as Cosmic Consciousness”
Common Sense and Idealism: A Response to Scott Roberts
This is a response to an essay by Scott Roberts on Bernardo Kastrup’s site: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/07/idealism-vs-common-sense.html It is the result of a conversation taking place on this thread: https://metakastrup.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=618&p=13627#p13627 I found your essay extremely interesting. I also am drawn to thinking about how the experience of the world has changed over the millennia, which we doContinue reading “Common Sense and Idealism: A Response to Scott Roberts”
Script to Video: Beranardo Kastrup pt 2: The Metaphysics
This is a follow up to my last video, which was a wide-ranging look at Bernardo Kastrup’s interview by Craig Reed. This time I focus tightly on Kastrup’s metaphysics as described in Kastrup’s interview on the Adrian Sinclair Show, titled How to Think About Consciousness, linked to below: The picture that emerges is a flightContinue reading “Script to Video: Beranardo Kastrup pt 2: The Metaphysics”
World Too Brightly Lit
In a world too brightly lit we loose the depth of night.In a world without soil we loose our soul.In a world absent deep deep harmony we become flat.In this world of meandering consciousness many cry out for meaning.Meaning is what they can least afford and mean instead comfort, assurance.The bedtime story of divine purpose,Continue reading “World Too Brightly Lit”
Script for YouTube Video: Response to Bernardo Kastrup Interview by Craig Reed
Bernardo Kastrup is garnering attention with his revival of Metaphysical Idealism, especially among some Christian thinkers, and several of whom have appeared in conversation on this channel. This attention is partially due to surprise: Metaphysical Idealism has been out of favor for quite some time and bucks a major trend in philosophy since the lateContinue reading “Script for YouTube Video: Response to Bernardo Kastrup Interview by Craig Reed”
William Lane Craig and Kant’s First Antinomy: The Evasiveness of the Apologist
There are those who will criticize the tone of my writing here as inappropriate to addressing a work of scholarship, to whom I point out I am not confronting a work of scholarship. Others may complain that I am not properly respecting an important work of philosophy, to whom I respond that I am notContinue reading “William Lane Craig and Kant’s First Antinomy: The Evasiveness of the Apologist”
Script for YouTube Video: Critique of Winger and Stratton Video on Free Will
Hello. I’m Jeffrey Williams. Welcome to another installment of Too Late for the Gods. Today we will look at a video on the apologist Mike Winger’s channel, which is linked below, titled: How Free Will Conflicts with Atheism, which is a presentation of an argument set forth by his guest, a Dr. Tim Stratton. TheContinue reading “Script for YouTube Video: Critique of Winger and Stratton Video on Free Will”
Response to Jack Shawhan on my critique of Analytic Philosophy
When you say I’m eschewing all analytical philosophy over the sake of criticism of one school and proposing the truth has at last been found, it almost sounds like you’re constructing a metanarrative of which you might be oversimplifying my critique. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist). If nothing else, I would like to dispel some misconceptionsContinue reading “Response to Jack Shawhan on my critique of Analytic Philosophy”
Script to YouTube Video: Critique of Richard Swinburne’s Argument for God
This is the script for my YouTube video: Critique of Richard Swinburne’s Argument for God. Today’s video might seem a little dry, as we will necessarily rummage through the desiccate ashes and bones of medieval metaphysics which form Richard Swinburne’s thinking. I think it’s worth the effort, however, because it gives us a realistic measureContinue reading “Script to YouTube Video: Critique of Richard Swinburne’s Argument for God”
Follow My Blog
Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.
Too Late for the Gods 
Hello Mr. Williams!
Upon reading, you genuinely seem to be a well-intended, intelligent, and sincere man. I appreciate your thoughtful and considerate responses to many existential questions. What strikes me is the same feeling of frustration reading philosophers from across time, that being the deep weeds of presupposition. One often comes away from a discussion feeling as though 10 different philosophers would give 10 or even 20 different answers…to just the presuppositional argument! Not even diving into the question at hand. Furthermore, every one would respond with such condescension as to presume they are the only ones who have truly deliberated the subject at all.
The field of philosophy is a wasted human endeavor, one in which we spend entire lifetimes trying desperately to rationalize various aspects of our existence all the while absolutely denying the one conclusion that answers them all. It would be like a group of high-browed intellects debating over the centuries exactly why some days get so hot, sometimes unbearably so, why our skin sometimes even burns and all water in the area evaporates. All the while refusing to accept the sun as any plausible explanation, leaving them toiling within a necessarily hopeless enterprise. Discussing and debating, inventing entire lexicons and theories, arguing ad nauseam over the ontology of heat, its effects, qualities, and mannerisms. Within this derived schema of self-importance, the philosopher exists, establishing a facade of value added to a society around them which is working daily to produce and care for one another.
The irony of the philosophical endeavor is that, as man tries to explain his own existence and the associated trappings thereof, he absolutely refuses to accept the answer. Just as the “heat philosophers” refuse to admit the sun as the source of their dilemma. Should you have the courage, may I ask you to consider reality and truth as concrete constructs that must be discovered, not as malleable or relative to our highly dysfunctional perceptions. If God exists, then He would communicate that to us. It would be undeniable and He would offer us explanations as to our existence, purpose, and destiny. He would leave us with hard evidence as to His presence among us in order to allow the use of our own ration to verify His existence. Our goal, therefore, would be to seek this Truth and be willing to accept the evidence before us, even if our feelings or preconceived beliefs would argue against it. As a physician and skeptic, is how I came to faith in understanding Jesus as the Messiah and Creator of all things. Should you have the willingness, I would suggest investigating the Resurrection of Christ by studying Gary Habermas and J. Warner Wallace (“The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” and “Cold Case Christianity”) as a leaping off point. Once you realize God exists, Created all things, incarnated Himself, died to atone for our wickedness, and rose from the grave, you will understand Truth, and the Truth will set you free (John 8:31-32).
God Bless you and thank you for listening to my thoughts 🙂
Heath VanDeLinder
LikeLike
Thank you, Mr. VanDeLinder, for your thoughtful and interesting response. We probably share more in common than differ. You have well laid out the reasons for my frustration with philosophy, and the reasons the most important thinkers, such as Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Quine proclaimed it dead.
My path is to inquire into that shining sun you describe to come to some understanding of the essence of the Universe, from which our own nature derives, and our place in it. Our difference is only in what we believe that sun to be. I was once a Christian, and am familiar with the books you reference. That is where our paths diverge, although we seek the same answers. I left all religion as I became convinced they weren’t authentic encounters with the deeper truths, but rather metaphysical musings of ancient men. I prefer to contemplate direct experience within physical reality – Heidegger’s thinking of Being. I became convinced the only path to truth is to maintain the discipline to refrain from metaphysical projections and stay hard to the actual physicality of the experience itself. I pose the same questions as do theists, but search elsewhere for the answers.
LikeLike