In reply to this post.
A route is a path. There are two routes in philosophy.
What are the two routes? I read to the end. lol. Good read, by the way.
A route, is also a retreat.
By “retreat” you mean a route of escaping from what? This is a metaphor that assumes something to escape from. I am not sure what yet.
— A rout is a retreat. From what? does it matter? The definition of a route is a disorganized retreat.
One either has faith, or one doubts. But often enough, people think they are not having faith when they are doubting. But most often through their doubting they are really just upholding faith.
“… faith … doubt” Let us be clear here. Are we assuming just the Christian faith and Christian doubt? Or are we talk about all faiths, Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainism and the other thousands of religions out there and therefore all doubts?
— I am giving you a definition: One either has faith or one doubts. Thats what one has: either you have faith or you doubt. Definition of what one has.
Faith is that which is already informing one to what they can possibly know.
Is it only Faith that informs? Can another faith inform? Can a non-faith inform?
‘…know …’ I am assuming Faith also means all that is to be Known in the widest possible sense, inside and outside the reality.
—–Again, definition: Faith = that which is already informing one to what they can possibly know. Anything you can possibly know = informed by faith. Definition.
But if you must refer out to a resource: Kirkegaard’s notion of faith is that which allows for the leap; it is not a leap into faith, and it is not a leap of faith. Faith is that which is informing that the leap occurs.
The leap which is into faith, as though one makes a choice about it, or where one hopes, is inauthentic, a leap of despair, sin. Modern.
The operation of faith is based in offense. In our modern times, the basic offense of what we can call conventional philosophy is known as contradiction.
What is the non-conventional philosophy that we are hinting at here?
—- Definition: faith as an operation finds itself or is knowable due to an offense which is inherent to what is come upon.
Definition: what is modern is defined by a routine offense called contradiction.
If you must again have an authority for what modernity is, perhaps read Habermas, or Benjamin, amoung others.
Non-conventional philosophy is that which is not conventional: definition by virtue of defining what conventional is. This is part of the issue of the two routes.
In this way, the modern religion is based in A foundational theological tenant that we call reason.
You are not talking of any religion other than Christianity, are you?
—-definition: that which we call modern can be understood as a religion by virtue of the above definitions (postulates). The offense inherent to the modern religion is held in check through a religious tenant we can call reason.
Reason upholds the modern faith in reality by rejecting contradiction. Modern identity is founded in moving the other direction once contradiction is found. Contradiction defines the limit of subjectivity.
We need to define reason and contradiction clearer here. I don’t know if we are holding on to the same definitions for these.
—– again: you know what reason is. and likewise contradiction. No definition is needed. I am positive when you read Aristotle or Socrates or Augustine, you do not ask them for their definition of contradiction. But as well, you again could refer to those authorities if you need a refresher. Or just ask your local mathematician. But , as I say, you are just being obstinate, because you already know what those terms mean. But, you could even look in a dictionary because that definition would suffice also.
—- you are not thinking. you are merely making arguments. you are not thinking about the possibility involved in the definitions I am putting forth and their relationship to each other. You are not taking what I am writing seriously. You are taking what I am writing as a game where you are trying to win. In the sense of Heidegger: you have not begun to think. In the context of this post, you are merely applying the modern religious theological method to argue away what is offending you so far as what you are considering thinking. But nevertheless You are upholding the modern faith by implementing the theological strategies to hold off what offends your sense of truth. But indeed, in the Heidgerian spirit, you have not begun to think.
However, these are not insults. On the contrary, they are just describing what is already there. But in as much as you might see them as arguments to be rebutted or overcome, there are you implementing the theological methodology to remove the offense inherent in them. To say “that is your (me, Lances) opinion” merely is an application of the defense against the inherent offense. This is what is occurring, not an argument about the basic or fundamental nature of reality. This is simply a description of what is happening. A way to talk about operations. Not an argument about the metaphysical nature of existence. I am not exempting myself from these operations by talking about how you do them; quite the opposite. I am describing the situation.
We call a known thing which has parameters, and object.
I will go with this. But I am not sure again, if your ‘know’ is the same notion as my ‘know’.
—I can say this because you know what I mean by the word ‘know’. You would have no ability to even be able to ask me this question if you didn’t already know what ‘know’ means. You are dredging up argument for the sake of argument without even attempting to consider what I am saying. If you do not know what the term ‘know’ means, then you would not even be able to read this sentence and have any comprehension whatsoever. That is just a silly question in this context. Simply poking holes in terms is not philosophy; it is a postmodern misappropriation of the Socratic Method to assert your modern identiy. Nothing wrong with that. It just is. I am just describing, not arguing the something is incorrect. What you see as incorrect what is offending you. Simple definition.
If we can define one parameter, we have found the beginning of an object, …
An object has not begun, then, until it is defined by a parameter. Until that moment the object does not exist.
—Ahhh. Hey! So you decided to start to think, huh? Hmm, yeah. How could I know anything about anything until there is a parameter by which to have knowledge of it? Yet, this then does not argue that “everything exists in mind”, but it does stem from the maxim that nothing arises outside of discourse.
… because all we need is one fact of an object and that necessarily leads to all the facts which constitute an object.
Fact equals truth? What is a fact? — A fact is an object, as well as a part or an aspect of an object. I use fact, object, truth as definite terms, foundational terms of the universe because everyone already understands those terms in the context of such universals, and despite how we would define them under particular conditions. I could go anywhere where where the word ‘fact’ is used, and everyone would know what it means. If they dont use ‘fact’, then I would be able to (potentially, as I might learn to fluidly use the new language) find a corresponding term or phrase which would mean as much in the context of the discourse that is Being used, even as it may not correspond with the English context and use of the term, because I would be enmeshing in the context of that particular language context, and not some ‘universal human’ context.
All of the facts are what is knowable.
Because we know that the subject of reason rejects contradiction, we know one parameter of the modern subject.
What is the definition of subject? I honestly do not know the meaning of subject in this context.
— you are not wanting to paint yourself into a corner, is what is happening. You know exactly what I mean by the subject. Again, if you need another authority, check the multitude of philosophers, or psychologists, or even the dictionary. But if you need a definition: a subject is a subject of discourse.
Because we know one parameter, one fact of subjectivity, one true thing which establishes the modern subject in the real world, we likewise know that subjectivity is an object that we can know.
The difficulty in understanding this kind of knowledge is founded in a theological tenant that we know as philosophical phenomenalism, or what we could call the phenomenal subject. The modern subject becomes fully defined once the postmodern Version of phenomenalism arises.
When we see that the postmodern subject is really the completion of the modern theological subject, then we have all the information we need to begin to understand the object of the subject.
You have lost me here. But I may be lost because I do not have a theological tenant s my starting point. And also our uses of modernism/postmodernism is likely different, both idiosyncratic in their own ways.
—- it is because you are oriented upon things through modern subjectivity. I am defining again what the case is, not making an argument about what could be the case.
The two routes is the way that we understand a subject, as an object.
Again, are the two routes taken by one person or taken by two people.
—definition. Not argument. Two routes = definition. the two routes is a way to understand the subject as an object, as opposed to understanding the subject as the basis of everything else.
It doesn’t matter what one believes about a situation. …
I am glad to hear that … but it seems to me that you are continually projecting a faith and doubt onto me that I do not have, a kind of “Poor fella. He doesn’t know it but God will Save him.” You may feel the same of me, that I am projecting an emptiness or a nihilism that you do not want.
—-Indeed, I am not exempting myself from my proposals. But again: definition, not argument. definition: belief is not relevant in this proposal. Belief = not relevant. But because: there is nothing outside of discourse. The content of belief is more discourse; the content of belief here does not refer to something outside of discourse. The ideal that belief is referring to something substantial is not relevant to this proposal. Because it concerns only the nature of discourse.
… What we find of the subject, by its parameters, is true, despite subjective knowledge. Because only subjectivity concerns belief, and belief is that by which subjectivity is upheld in faith.
Language, or an orientation upon discourse in particular, is the means by which the theology of the subject Upholds the modern religious faith. Faith is that which grants reality, because it is operating to inform us what we are able to think and know.
I don’t know if we have the same notion of language also. For in the beginning wasn’t the word. It wasn’t with God. and it certainly wasn’t God.
—- you are caught in the faith of modern subjective reason. That is one route upon things. Indeed, you and I are constantly interacting through this one route. But I am not arguing that this is incorrect or needs to be corrected. I am merely describing the situation that is before us: two routes which occur at all times, but which do not function do reduce to either One route, that is, exclusively. so: AND, not EITHER/OR.
I am not misquoting this because I want to poke fun at Christianity, but because I feel that language like this misleads. By Word=God we have no escape (retreat, if you will) from the narrative, the discourse.
—- of course. The word was and was not with God, and was and was not because he existed or he did not exist. It depends in the context. Whatever anyone would argue, God was inherent to the discussion in its existence and its nonexistence, depending on what the discourse was presenting at the time. Again: is there anything that arises outside of discourse?
Philosophy arises in simultaneity as a thrust forward, and as a retreat. The view which sees a choice in how to proceed, is always a move forward, a real move. Hence the reason which finds truth is retreating.
I highly recommend Metaphors We Live By as a route to understand how metaphors like this work. Lakoff would label this an [X IS WAR.] conceptual metaphor.
I might read it, (I am in school though, lol…the time!). but I am likewise pretty sure I have a pretty good understanding of the depth of metaphor in language for achieving reality and meaning.