After millennia of philosophy, it seems you've been in a crab basket that you can't go outside of it.
Let it go.

Dear rash friend,
How could you infer such a sense from what I wrote?
According to you, then, If evil is a no-thing(ontologically), if it is only a plain term, we should not punish a killer because of his/her abominable act? Do you really think that I thought in this way? Don't you think that maybe you may have confused about what ground (ontological or judicial) we discussed?

Some thoughts are round and some thoughts are angled. :))

If you_________, then you must ___________.

Usually WHY, HOW and WHAT is such and such?? = would be philosophical questions. — Corvus

"How can i open the box?"
According to you, above is a kind of philosophical question, right? Then, explain how it is. :)

But i came here about 8 months ago. Even so, thanks, so kind. :)

Not quite.

it's a distinction that's positively medieval. — StreetlightX

Right, but dealing with the history of philosophy is one of the ways of philosophizing (it's Hegel's proposition and i agree). it also is the history of our present concepts and their dynamic relations with each other. it can not be underestimated.

As far as i see, forum users are not so much familiar this distinction and it's history. Take a look around, there be not a sound to be heard. :)

Without us, or anything like us, there would be nobody to observe and understand the universe. — Purple Pond

Welcome Mr.Berkeley; didn't you die for a long time ago, around 18th century? :sweat:

Taming Mind and Body, nothing more.

A particular problem is waiting to be solved.

In classical judgement form of logic, of course, this is contradicted with the law of excluded middle; it must be A or "not A"; one or other. Having recourse to Hegelian Logic maybe can solve your problem.

Then God bless Turkey. My country have no deficient to be repicient of God's bless. What an absurd verbalism... Don't u find any subject worth to discuss in a philosophy forum? Why we care about a conservative American idiom? And is this a philosophical question? Think a bit.

I’ve always understood gnosis to be something whose experiential evidence — javra

Actually, Cusa's knowledge (or gnosis) is based on an experiental ground too. He describe it as a "divine gift" of profound experience during his journey back from Constantinople in the winter of 1437. Maybe we can compare it with the "activity of theoria" in original sense contained in Aristotle's Metaphysics (recourse Hadot's works).

albeit in what at times were somewhat esoteric ways (as a well-known example: neither is there a self nor not a self). — javra

Cusa uses mathematics as a demostrational device to throw light on the matter. More exoteric way compared to the other.

I had never heard or seen the word "gnoseology" before your post — T Clark

Yeah, i hadn't heard too, but some time ago, i saw this concept while i was reading for my phd research in the book titled "Word as Bread-Language and Theology in Nicholas of Cusa". Author has used this concept in a subheading of his work's without examined or accounted for a bit. As far as i can understand from my reading, the concept in question contains some connotations are related to a kind of revelational knowledge which can be obtained through a way of "thinking" transcends discursive reasoning; and Cusa has described it "visio intellectualis".

But be careful, Cusa don't put forward a mystical or irrational context, he has an understanding of stratified reason, but quite different from Aristotelian sense; there is no cosmological reference. That is to say, there is a kind of a problem of knowledge in great measure in terms of it's way of obtaining and man's cognitive faculties. So, some academicians prefer this concept instead of epistemology.

I don't think there are any strict, established or proscriptive distinctions between the two — StreetlightX

If so, we can use both of them instead of each other. But why we use one in sometimes and other in another time?

historically, gnosis referred to esoteric knowledge, knowledge 'hidden' from plain view, usually divine or relvelatory knowledge (knowledge of God, or else of the divine nature of things), so in this sense gnoseology can be understood to be a more constricted or narrower form of knowledge, a knowledge not of 'things in general', but of very specific things. — StreetlightX

As historically and etymologically, that's right. However, can we see using of it in this manner in recent terminology? I think, no.

I'm glad you too.

On the on side, we can affirm it, scepticism is the negation of the knowing of the things as absolutely, then the doubt carry us onward to know better and this can be "terminus ad quem" for it; on the other side, we must abolish it, because it can imprison us in a vicious cycle.

As it is understood, Hegel still is an unpopular philosopher in Anglo-Saxon World. :)

It isn't a "thing"; quite simple.

And actually I'd love to know where he wrote/said such a thing. — MountainDwarf

Look at De Malo. You can also find some english translations of it.

I don't know we can know exactly why or how God permits suffering. — MysticMonist

If we can, then "mysterious ways" is fucked up. :) It can even be a contradiction.

This matter was my master thesis and i can only say one thing: There is no such problem. In classical theistic responses, such as Aquinas put forward, there is already no thing such "evil". Evil is nothingness. For instance, blidness is an evil thing for eyed creature; but blindness is actually nothing because it is deprivation of seeing. In the same way, ilness is the deprivation of health, death is the deprivation of life and so on and so forth. On the other hand, for non-theists, there must be no thing like the problem of evil and actually there is not; they only use it as a counter-argument. As ontological, for both-sides, there is no such thing. In short, according to me, this so-called "problem" is one of the biggest pseudo-problem in the history of philosophy.

Look for humor another place and don't water topic down, please.

Is that enough? It seems a kind of "explaining away". Because conceptual analysis does not change "major" way of thinking. Maybe there is another dimension must be scrutinized; I mean, sociological.

In a sense, all of them means each other. Let you scruntize Cusanus's notion of "learned ignorance" (See: De Docta Ignorantia).

what is this topic doing here, in "philosophy of science"?
what an absurdity...

Then i would like to make a conversation with two people in question.

I think, i said last words. Impressive :)

"There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth." (perennialism)
Although it is a bit magniloquent sentence, i can say that it epitomizes a perennial position.
On the other hand, the paths in question are different (or cognate) traditions whom people can follow, then i can say that without traditionalism, perennialism turns into a kind of unamenable syncreticism. All new age bullshists comprises of this type of unamenable manners. We can compare traditions with different kind of architectural systems. All of them are tested, practiced and developed throughout ages, they contained experiences of ages and if you decide to construct any kind of building you would practice one of them. If you are a master, you can devise new one, possible.

However, there is no doubt that all masters are not real masters, some of them are false and this is another subject. Without a reliable path(tradition), you can not reach the goal. Because of this reason, most of well-known perennialist ( such as Sayyed Hussein Nasr or Rene Guenon) are also traditionalists.

Jose Ortega Y Gasset - History as a System

Unless knowing current theories and events in neuro-science, this topic is left unsupported. The mind-body problem or the problem of consciousness -whatever you say- is also a problem of neuro-science.

Look at the stoics. For instance, Seneca is not a religious man.