As Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, it's heresy to suggest that God is a category that the three hypostases belong to, as dogs, cats, and mice belong to the category of mammals, rather, each hypostasis is fully God. — frank
Yeah, the Creed doesn't help much unless you also take on board the whole Thomistic metaphysics of essence and personhood and so on. — Banno
Isn't this the same thing that always happens with Banno? He takes his parochial, historically ignorant version of Analytic Philosophy... — Leontiskos
For those with an interest in background stuff, the diagram, which Leon says is most certainly not a representation the Trinity, can be found in the Wiki article on The Shield of the Trinity, where there is a bit of historical background. — Banno
It's odd that you think a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine — frank
So tell us what your account is! — Banno
Klima's finishing point is that those who have not agreed with his argument do so becasue they do not have an adequate understanding of god; and that their understanding is inadequate is shown by their not accepting the argument. — Banno
From Father = God and Son = God — Banno
Again, I do not want to attack Catholic Dogma. — Banno
Folk here can plainly see your misrepresenting me as objecting to a mere diagram. I am pointing to the denial of the transitivity of identity shown in that diagram, and asking for an explanation. — Banno
Presumably, I can now proceed to present any number of accounts of the Trinity, and for each, you will say "that's not it, Dumbass!" — Banno
You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea.
* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos
The whole thread may have been given too much credit. It's fairly hard to salvage a thread that begins that way. — Leontiskos
You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. — Wayfarer
Ok, so set out what is Trinitarian dogma, — Banno
explain to Wayfarer, who offered the diagram, why it is inadequate. — Banno
the diagram shows clearly the denial of transitivity. It's that denial, not the diagram, that is at issue. — Banno
That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. — Leontiskos
Now you quote yourself! — Banno
Quotes are part of your religion; you and Tim use them to bury objections, not to address them. Quotes are not arguments. — Banno
Are you attempting to attack Trinitarian dogma? What do you take it to be? You're obviously ignorant of Christianity, Thomism, and all the rest of the things you pretend to have conquered. You seem to be specifically attacking your construal of a popular diagram. That diagram is not Trinitarian dogma. If you want to attack the Trinitarian doctrine you would have to find a theological source to engage.* Else, in that alternative universe where a serious Banno exists, he would actually look at the Council of Nicea. Yet even to read the diagram charitably is to not assume that "is" is being used numerically, which you obviously have not managed.
* If someone is actually trying to critique Thomism, then they probably want to engage Thomas. The easiest place is the first part of the Summa Theologiae, particularly questions 30, 31, and 32. — Leontiskos
You have nothing but ad hominem attacks? "You mother wears army boots" and "My Daddy is a policeman"?
Where's your logic, man!? — Banno
I'm just pointing out the consequences of that diagram. — Banno
No one denies that children can play nonsense games together. — Janus
I asked for a quote from Peirce wherein he say his semiotics were inspired by Augustine. — Janus
A Catholic accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, which says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. A Catholic also accepts the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice, as outlined in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"
Put the two together, and we have God sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to save us from Himself. — frank
That’s fair. I think letting them starve, all else being equal, is better than murdering them. — Bob Ross
But couldn’t God just drive them out? Why would God murder a child when He could just command the demon to leave the child’s body? Jesus drives out demons all the time in the NT. — Bob Ross
I would say no; for example, a judge that knows it is wrong to steal cannot advise to a citizen to steal irregardless if the citizen themselves understand it is a crime. (We are assuming here) God knows it is immoral; so He cannot command it. — Bob Ross
That’s interesting, I will have to take a deeper look into that. — Bob Ross
Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.
If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people. — Bob Ross
Those examples you gave are relative to the individual so they are not examples that support group culpability. E.g., a person or group that aids or abets are culpable because they themselves did something that is involved with that practice—an innocent person who did not aid or abet but happens to be a part of the group would not get charged unless they demonstrate they themselves did aid and abet. — Bob Ross
For someone honestly "interested in what Christians believe," you sure don't seem particularly interested in what Christians have to say about your description of their beliefs. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think it would be a mistake and a superficial reading to decontextualize the command to kill the Amalekites and use that as an injunction against God. The command is given by Samuel, speaking on behalf of God. — BitconnectCarlos
Martin Buber argues that Samuel mistakes his own will for God's, which I imagine would be easy to do for a man who selects kings and possesses a special relationship with the divine. The divine voice in this book is more removed than in earlier books.
In Torah, you'll hear, e.g., "And God said to Abraham...." In the book of Samuel, this doesn't happen, and instead, it's Samuel telling Saul to put Amalek under the ban. The key here is Samuel. He could be correctly and perfectly conveying God's will, or he could be mistaken, or he could be deceiving. The clarity of Torah, where we see God's words openly dictated, is no longer present in Samuel. — BitconnectCarlos
Yes. I suspect the former idea is earlier, the latter idea (seen in Chronicles) is later. Biblical authors struggle to deal with this. Each view has its strengths and weaknesses. I find the notion that God allows evil to fester and build until it's ripe for destruction to be a fascinating and non-modern one. My favorite theodicy is Job. We can engage in apologetics, but ultimately, I believe the existence of evil and suffering in this world is beyond human comprehension. — BitconnectCarlos
So it seems you have gone with adding the premise: "classical theologians are wrong about what they think they are saying, and have been wrong since the Patristic era, because when they use "is" it must refer to numerical identity." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Was the OP just an attempt to supply an argument for the predetermined conclusion that religious thinking is bad? It doesn't seem to have succeeded.
The irony here is that Banno does a 180 when he goes after religion, relying on unimpeachable principles that religion has supposedly transgressed. "Any stick to beat the devil." — Leontiskos
I had presumed you would be seeking to defend trinitarian dogma — Banno
What about respecting their decision as a free agent and not trying to impose upon their will by modifying it through rehabilitation, but instead giving them their just dessert? One ought be rewarded for bad behavior and good.
As C.S. Lewis says, "To be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ought to have known better, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image." — Hanover
Anyhow, as John Deely never gets tried of repeating, the sign relation is "irreducibly triadic." It is defined relationally, just as the Trinity is. A sign isn't an assemblage of parts, since each component only is what it is in virtue of its relation to the whole. The sign and the Trinity aren't perfect images of each other, the idea is rather that all of creation reflects the Creator, and thus the triadic similarity shows up even in the deepest structures, yet no finite relations can capture the Trinity. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Wokeness is not simply an ideology or a belief system. Instead, it reveals the irreversible transformation of the autonomous, rational subject of liberalism into a digitized, emotive, and aestheticized form of subjectivity. — Number2018
I’m not looking for an argument or even an explanation. I’m just curious. Is expressing the opinion that white people are more intelligent as a class than black people cause for immediate banning? — T Clark
Yes. — Jamal
“Fixed” was not the right word. What I meant is a created or preset standard, as if a requirement. An example is philosophy’s historic desire to dictate what is “rational” (assuming universality or generalizability, prediction, completeness, certainty, normativity, etc) ahead of looking for how things have rationality, reasons, things that matter. — Antony Nickles
I believe I said this “out loud” above — Antony Nickles
The reason is that “‘rational/irrational’ gets in the way”. This seems clear on its face. — Antony Nickles
Just because you don’t understand it — Antony Nickles
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean I am not saying it, — Antony Nickles
How am I, how is anyone, able to explain something in a way where it anticipates every possible misunderstanding, question, land mine, etc? I have stood here ready to explain, clarify, correct, admit, etc.. Have you done everything you can to understand (even read everything?) before you accuse me of saying nothing? And you accuse me of dodging? Unbelievable. — Antony Nickles
My reason was to point out a philosophical error that dictates what we see, and overlook. — Antony Nickles
Take my name out of your mouth. — Antony Nickles
Richard Rorty made some interesting observations along these lines. — Joshs
I don’t want my position to be misread as a claim that when we deliberate we may be blind to the true motives and meanings of what we are trying to reason about. For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. — Joshs
But I suggest that the more philosophically, spiritually and ethically consequential the topic, the more likely it is that the participants will begin talking past each other, which is where the intransigence of presuppositions I discussed earlier becomes a barrier to consensus, not due to hidden or unconscious dynamics, but the limits of any given framework of intelligibility to assimilate elements outside its range of convenience. — Joshs
I feel like I should take issue with the presumption, but the question itself is too broad for me to answer. Nevertheless (stepping in front of the loaded question), what is an example of an error that is moral, say ideological? As, say, opposed to a political one, like dictatorship? — Antony Nickles
Dewey (as I discuss here) will call intolerance a “treason” to democracy, which would cast one out of the polis, not be “wrong” or a mistake. — Antony Nickles
In AO Deleuze distinguishes between investment in pre-conscious interests and unconscious desires. Pre-conscious interests guide and organize what matters and how it matters. — Joshs
You rightly take from Wittgenstein the anchoring of sense in systems of intelligibility that he talks about in terms of language games, forms of life and hinges.
What Wittgenstein does not discuss is how difficult one should expect it to be to persuade another to change their way of looking at things. — Joshs
As Wittgenstein observes, "There is no why. I simply do not. This is how I act" (OC 148). — Moliere
How should we respond to Wittgenstein here? Apparently by pointing out to him that there is a why, and that other people act differently than he does. As soon as two people who act in foundationally different ways come into contact with one another the "why" will become a question of interest. — Leontiskos
Armed with this knowledge, you hoped to steer the discussion of wokeness away from what is true, rational , reasonable and logical to a preliminary exploration of the different ways participants construe what is at stake and at issue, and then see what kind of consensus might arise from this hermeneutic exercise. — Joshs
I said, “to ignore… in only recognizing fixed standards”, and this would be preset (created) requirements, not “any standards” — Antony Nickles
And here, as I have said (quite a few times now), I am not trying to cut off argument or dismiss anyone (not saying “can’t critique” or “aren’t allowed”), only suggesting we find out if our (any) assumptions are getting in the way of seeing things clearly. — Antony Nickles
I think the presumption here [...] is that I actually do have a position — Antony Nickles
Isn’t this what anyone is against, being judged prematurely, say, based on an inappropriate standard? — Antony Nickles
I have tried to explain this, make an argument for it; — Antony Nickles
Can you point me to the post where you provide reasons for why we ought to take a step back? — Leontiskos
My first post was to get at why “rational/irrational” gets in the way, and to suggest a way around that, but I think I did such a poor job of it, not expecting confusion in the right places, that I think it better to just see what I am doing in, participate in the method of, the example and maybe hold off of on the larger philosophical issues; — Antony Nickles
So are you saying that you don't really know of a place where you provide reasons for why we ought to take a step back? — Leontiskos
Let’s start with this: If you agree with Barron that CT doesn’t adhere to an ‘anything goes’ relativism, are you claiming that some wokists do adhere to an ‘anything goes’ relativism? Can you give specific examples here, (besides Amadeus’s assertions)? — Joshs
I suggest it is extremely unlikely the woke leadership, much less the rank and file, has assimilated any of this stuff — Joshs
Is it your contention that wokist practices are so wildly deviant from the philosophical antecedents Barron mentions that ‘blurring the difference’ deprives us of a vital understanding of wokists? — Joshs
Are you suggesting that wokists, in treating others as a means to an end, don’t believe they have intrinsic worth? Should I be looking in the direction of Kant to locate the context of your critique of means-ends thinking? — Joshs
You may be more conversant with Hegel than I am, but I suspect that thinking a hierarchy of values according to power originates with Hegel’s dialectical ‘stages’ of history. His idea of a totalizing emancipatory telos in the form of absolute Spirit becomes naturalized as dialectical materialism with Marx, and rethought as discursive power relations with CT writers. This is where I situate wokism, more or less. Only with Nietzsche and postmodern writers like Foucault is the logic of an emancipatory hierarchy and telos abandoned.
If to be woke is to be enlightened, then Foucault’s response to Kant’s 1774 essay ‘What is Enlightenment’ is instructive of where he might depart from wokists. He considers enlightenment not as emancipation through reason (as in Kant), but as the use of reason to challenge authority, norms, and institutions. This is true of wokists as well, but woke movements often aim to enforce moral clarity, while Foucault sees that impulse as itself a form of power-knowledge that should be questioned. — Joshs
To add on a bit of a late point, I have often found that people who are pro-woke tend to retreat to theoreticals and philosophy while neglecting the material concerns that were brought up. It's an understandable impulse, but a frustrating one. I am sympathetic to moral concerns, obviously, but I find woke actions often have a startling lack of pragmatism backing them up. It gives off the vibe that they would rather lose than compromise what seem to be increasingly rigid beliefs. While I find this admirable to an extent, it makes attempts at rational discussion about pragmatic solutions all but impossible sometimes, even when you ultimately share similar goals. — MrLiminal
That should have been more plainly said by the critic of the critique/assessment. Are you trying to be woke about criticizing wokeness? — Fire Ologist
True. So maybe what is peculiar about “wokeness” has not been peculiar at all? “Woke” is merely a new window dressing, a new word, for erroneous justification of emotional conviction? — Fire Ologist
In these terms, my point was that the ad hoc assumption of—inherently to prove legitimacy/not legitimate up front—say, the desire for, a framing of irrationality/emotion, is endemic in philosophy and humanity, and gets in the way of a broader practice of assessment. I should have qualified this with the recognition that there are mistakes (to be) made (bad means), and I do think it is important to sort the wheat from the (general) chaff. And here it seems there is some distinction to be made between (general) bad means separate from certain goals or criteria, and those intrinsic in the value(ing) of certain criteria, and, recognizing there are costs to meeting most goals, is the juice worth the squeeze (and what that is, and if avoidable, able to be mitigated, etc) — Antony Nickles
And what I suggest is not to understand the other’s “experience”, which has been philosophically pictured as ever-present and always “mine”, which manifests as the desire to remain misunderstood (or be clear on its face), or be special by nature (always unique). But it is also used as a justification to ignore the human altogether in only recognizing fixed standards for knowledge and rationality. I take these as a general human desire to avoid responsibility to answer for ourselves and to make others intelligible. — Antony Nickles
Yes. To qualify as art less, means it only marginally identifies as art. Oatmeal, or a poo painting. This is not a value judgement, this is a statement about what the object is; that is, hardly art at all. You keep insisting that this is a value judgement. — hypericin
1. Either some human act/creation is more artistic than some other human act/creation, or else no human act/creation is more artistic than any other human act/creation. — Leontiskos
1a. Either some thing is more artistic than some other thing, or else no thing is more artistic than any other thing. — Leontiskos
[1b. Either some art is better (or more artistic) than other art, or else no art is better (or more artistic) than any other art.] — Leontiskos
