As a thinking process prior to language use, prior to formulation into thought, existence is BOTH possible and impossible... — Possibility

Existence is not a thinking process...

In the States at least...

All it takes to become successful and financially secure(rich, if you like) is hard work, saving your money, and obeying the laws. Many people are told that one, to this day.

Another...

...with liberty and justice for all!

That one, is perhaps one of the worst.

You know this isn't the domain of analytical philosophy (deny it if you want, but I know you do.) — frank

I don't believe in domains. Not too sure I'm rightly called an analytic philosopher either, so...

The pinto bean is the focus. Specifically, faith as distinct from mere or reasonable religious belief. I agree that faith may be a relatively new aspect within Christianity, and be inapplicable to other religious belief systems, but that's not the topic.

I'm not attributing Christian faith to any other religions, however, there are certainly similarities in different belief systems, such as QAnon and many Trump supporters(not all). The kind of faith being discussed is not limited to just Christianity.


...a self-imposed future inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken. A consciously chosen refusal to believe or even consider anything to the contrary - a leap into faith - actually creates an insurmountable 'self'-imposed impediment to even being able to believe otherwise. Such people will not even acknowledge that it's possible for such deeply held, unshakable beliefs to exist and be operative elements of their own self-governance.

One with faith in God will not waver. One with faith that they've attained access to God's word will not be swayed. One who knows(or comes to know) that they've long since placed faith in the truthful testimony of others may be swayed a bit more.

Fair enough, teach(as in short for teacher)...

:wink:

the search for the conditions under which expressions become meaningful, and what it is for something to be meaningful. Granted, this was under the guise of providing a very specific metasemantics, adopting the Wittgensteinian maxim distorted through Moore, but this was the first time in the specific tradition they were working in that it was done.

You can see precursors to it in the early analytic concern with meaning, especially the positivist conditions on intelligibility, but the positivists never asked the question in such an explicit way, not of which sorts of things were meaningful, but what it even meant for something to be meaningful, and how this might be made intelligible in terms of actual linguistic practices. This is a very powerful move, and one that I take to be 'naturalistic' and 'anthropological,'... — Snakes Alive

emphasis mine...

:smile: :point: :smile:

The relation is not meaningful in its entirety necessarily within language use, only as a partial render/construction of the entire relation. — Possibility

I don't talk in terms of things being meaningful in their entirety. Existing is not equivalent to being meaningful.

I think I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Our knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful and/or prior to our becoming aware of it is certainly limited.

I didn't look that closely. Just quickly saw that your suggestion would have improved his positions and took you at your word that that stage was a good time to castle.

Now you're saying it's not?

And here I thought you were being a good teacher.

:wink:

I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.
— creativesoul

What would you call it then? — Possibility

Having an effect/affect. A necessary precondition of becoming meaningful and/or becoming part of a causal and/or spatiotemporal relation.

Existence is a relation to the possibility of non-existence. In its entirety, and prior to becoming meaningful, the possibility of existence is inseparable from its negation.

That looks like an attempt at a logical rendering to me.

Here's my issue with it...

When something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no negation.

Considering whether or not something or another exists; parsing existence in terms of the possibility of non-existence; claiming that existence is inseparable from it's negation presupposes that negation itself exists. Negation is entirely existentially dependent upon language use. Existence is not. Hence, as above, when something exists in it's entirety prior to language use, there is no possibility that it does not, and there is no such thing as negation.

Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try. — Possibility

This might be our main point of contention. It seems to fit fine to me, without ending in incoherency, equivocation, or self-contradiction.

Well, my framework is not a logical one, but a relational structure which is founded ultimately on a binary contradiction. I’m okay with that, because I can relate to it. Relation doesn’t fit within a logical framework, no matter how hard we try. — Possibility

Interesting. It reminded me of para-consistent logic or rejecting bivalence or rejecting the LEM. Have you no issue with explosion? No use for truth?

Bok bok bok....

That's good advice though, regarding the stage in the game at which a castle would've been advantageous.

I prefer Othello.

You may. I'm not very good.

Didn't think one could castle as a means to get out of check. Wasn't he already in check?

I have a feeling that I'm somewhere in between the two of you in terms of talent or knowledge at or of the game of chess. I'll watch, though. You two are having fun. my only advice to you is to attack always, and learn from that. Always be looking to attack. If your opponent seems to have one up on you in terms of protected pieces, sometimes it's better to just attack prior to them and sacrifice as few as possible to stop what could otherwise be a catastrophic ending. You're probably outmatched by . He knows common openings which shows - probably - his level of knowledge is well beyond a beginner, but he seems to be a good teacher.

Enjoi.

Perhaps faith is a self-imposed inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken. A consciously chosen refusal to believe or even consider anything to the contrary.

The universal calibrates your vision. It helps you see patterns. — frank

"Belief systems" seems a better description than "the universal"... "Helps" is far too neutral or positive.

The strength of the US is that the US means so many different things to different people.
— ssu
The perfect Humpty Dumpty land, then! — baker

:point:

Yup. It has shown itself to be exactly that.

Anyone who expected differently has not been paying attention. — StreetlightX

:point:

Yeah, I'd figured out that that's probably where he first moved.

:point:

Those who believe they've been persecuted, perhaps, will believe that there will come a day of reckoning, when the persecution stops?

In today's modern age, the persecuted may take the 'form' of poor people(Americans) who know that something is inherently deeply wrong with the government in that it's supposed to be making decisions based upon their best interest, but it's clearly not been successful in doing so. Combine that with a deep-seated warranted belief that politicians(most anyway) are dishonest about what's actually motivating their own decision making(public policy), and you have fertile soil to sew the seeds...

Trump was/is looked at as a savior... because of those poor people's faith.

I don't see it.

What role is faith playing here? — frank

This is a good question.

Her parents have reasoned away why Q's predictions didn't come true. — frank

That's the role faith plays. The reasoning away...

Why is their faith so strong? — frank

That's a psychological question. I would say that there's much more to learn by seeking to answer how it became so unshakable.

"For years, believers of QAnon have been waiting for "The Storm," a day of reckoning foretold by Q during which these elites would be exposed, rounded up and possibly even executed. It seemed "The Storm" was always just around the corner.
Lily's father frantically called her days before the inauguration, imploring her to come home for her safety, she said. Her parents were so sure Q's predictions were going to come true.
But then Biden became president and nothing happened.
Lily hoped that her family would finally return to her after Biden's inauguration.
Her parents have reasoned away why Q's predictions didn't come true. "They blame themselves for not understanding what Q meant," she said. "For not being smart enough to be able to know what really is going to happen."
Now Lily, like others who have lost loved ones to QAnon, is left wondering how to move forward." — frank

Yes. Exactly!

They're scholars — frank

Use them then. By all means...

Quote these scholars on faith in the sense we're discussing here. The term is also used as a synonym to a belief system(denominations). That sense isn't under examination. I do think that Janus has been equivocating the senses though. No fault, just pointing out a potential point of confusion, and/or miscommunication.

Let's just say that I'm uniquely qualified to assess faith. I've seen it up close and personal. I've lived in it's immediate presence. I've watched it used as a means to condone completely unacceptable things like the behaviour/treatment of others. I've watched it used as a means to condemn helpful, well-intended, inclusive, respectful, but different people and world-views. Indeed, to this day, faith rears it's ugly head in many a conversation I have with certain family members, to their own detriment because having it has caused them to be far more confused, and angry at all the wrong people and things than need be.

Indeed, the very point of the paper is to drawn and maintain a distinction between faith and religious belief.
— creativesoul

There are a number of fantastic scholars of religion to rely on. — frank

Like the wise men?

It presupposes the existence of Zeus. It shows the role of authority throughout history as it pertains to religious belief. It shows that religious belief is not in it's own category. It shows that most - near all - religious belief is learned and it leads us to...

...consider the source.
— creativesoul

I don't know what you're trying to say. — frank

Religious belief is no different to any other about what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen.

Faith is unshakable conviction
— creativesoul

I don't know why you think that. Faith is frequently shaken, lost, regained, etc. It can be strong or weak. — frank

You think that this somehow contradicts what counts as faith? What's lost, shaken, or regained?

When it is lost or shaken, is it unshakable?

No.

If one has unshakable conviction, then they have faith. If they do not, they do not have faith.

Hence... as a matter of the highest merit, one will refuse all evidence to the contrary, as a means to show and/or demonstrate their faith.

It presupposes the existence of Zeus. It shows the role of authority throughout history as it pertains to religious belief. It shows that religious belief is not in it's own category. It shows that most - near all - religious belief is learned and it leads us to...

...consider the source.

You're putting a microscope on a quirky aspect of Christianity. — frank

I'm not saying that all religious belief is held with unshakable conviction. Indeed, one point of the paper is to draw and maintain a distinction between faith and religious belief. How else to do that if not putting a microscope upon faith?

Eh, for the majority of religious people in human history, faith wasn't much of an issue. You believed Zeus lives on a mountain because that's what the wise people said. — frank

Think about that.

Noah's ark...

The parting of the Red Sea...

The second coming of Christ...

Jonah and the whale...

Job - now there's a story about faith!

Again, I think this is a misunderstanding of faith as interpreted within certain (most) Christian traditions. The idea that faith is an unshakeable authority... — Possibility

That's not what I said. Faith is unshakable conviction that some claim or another(many usually) is true. True believers have it. All of them. That goes for fundamentalist(literalists) and others alike.

Authority does play a role in this, for unshakable trust in the truthfulness of God's Word is taught to be aspired towards, honored, exalted, and revered... in spite of any and all 'worldly' claims to the contrary.

That dissolves the earlier notion of intersubjective/subjective...

All religious belief is adopted. Edited to add:Well, strictly speaking that is clearly not true. I mean, someone somewhere had to come up with it first. But, aside from that, the point stands. Even moreso, the first beliefs served to fill in the gaps in the people's knowledge base about the way things are, were, and/or will be.

So, after knowledge to the contrary was acquired concerning those beliefs, to maintain the previous religious explanations for what's happened, was happening at the time, or will happen later(than that time) was a matter of(was to demonstrate one's own) faith.

...if we’re honest and conscious of how others relate, that this relation at least possibly exists prior to (or beyond) its meaning so attributed. ‘Truth’ is an example of this, and so is ‘existence’. Both of these relations exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful... — Possibility

Why the scare-quotes around the terms truth and existence? The words are part of a relation, so if that's what you're saying by calling them both relations, I would concur. However, as parts of language use, they are meaningful, so it doesn't make sense to say that both exist in their entirety prior to becoming meaningful.

I would also not call existence "a relation" or a relationship that exists in it's entirety prior to becoming meaningful.

I don’t think we can say anything about ‘relations that exist in their entirety prior to meaning’ within the bounds of logic. — creativesoul

I disagree... completely.

It seems that perhaps your framework will not allow us to say something about that which exists in it's entirety prior to meaning, without ending in self-contradiction, but that inevitable result is - I strongly suspect - due to the inherent flaws within that framework.

The age of the earth for starters???

Speech that can be shown to incite insurrection is not protected.

There can be no evidence to the contrary for any Christian beliefs?

Are you saying that?

Without his speech there would have been no insurrection attempt. The case is easy to make. McConnell made it. Trump will stand trial. One man created it. One man.