You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth. But I also think they’re no more important than the ‘negative space’. It is the quality and significance of this negative space - what we experience yet cannot attribute with a truth value - which enables us to ‘do philosophy’ in the first place. But our aim is not necessarily to attribute a truth value as such.

It is not arbitrary boundaries. The boundary had been drawn since time of Kant. And that was a part of his mission in Philosophy. I thought you did read Kant's Critiques. — Corvus

Sure - but that doesn’t mean they’re not arbitrarily drawn in a wider context. A large part of Kant’s mission was to determine the conditions for human knowledge. He drew the line and then explored its limitations as a boundary, recognising that reason is nevertheless informed by conditions beyond reason - that phenomena in human experience cannot be bracketed out simply because they don’t conform to reasonable concepts, but point to a wider context of ideas and feeling.

Drawing boundaries is not isolating and excluding, because it is saying that you go, and investigate the topics of out of the boundary of reason via faith, meditation or whatever other means that requires for you to get to the knowledge or truths you are after. — Corvus

...just remember to leave it all behind at the boundary to ‘Western Philosophy’? Would you say that ‘Western Philosophy’ as you understand it, then, is not seeking a complete, accurate or practical model of truth, but ONLY what ‘Western’ language and logic can assert to be true within reason?

Without an inclusive approach to truth and its negation that traverses the boundary of reason without penalty, you’re unable see how the human faculties of imagination, judgement and understanding can be restructured to interact in a working model of truth that is accurate both within and beyond this ‘boundary of reason’.

My position here has never been that your approach is ‘wrong’, only that it is narrow. You don’t seem willing to acknowledge this.

Reason, which is universal to human being's mind will authorise you to do that, if you follow proper guidelines and apply the right methodology to your truths seeking process. Surely that is not isolation and exclusion, but it is just a part of the right procedure in truths yielding. — Corvus

But you cannot prove your claim of ‘right’ or ‘proper’ without appealing to an arbitrary authority of Western ‘tradition’. Do you recognise the dogmatism here?

You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth. But I also think they’re no more important than the ‘negative space’. — Possibility

Just quick reply, as I have a lot to do today. Will read the rest laster when quiet.

I was not defending anything, but just noticed that your choice of the words "isolation and exclusion" was very negative. Anyone who can speak English will tell you that. It is not even in any philosophical books or schools unless you are talking about some pessimistic "Existential Philosophy" describing destitute human condition or fate, because they will all die in the end.

Denying that or saying otherwise, I would take it as pure dishonesty or you don't know how to use some basic English words.

Drawing lines on the mental faculties, or boundary of the senses and reason, is perfectly philosophical expression which had been used for long time by many famous philosophers.

I was not defending anything, but just noticed that your choice of the words "isolation and exclusion" was very negative. Anyone who can speak English will tell you that. It is not even in any philosophical books or schools unless you are talking about some pessimistic "Existential Philosophy" describing destitute human condition or fate, because they will all die in the end.

Denying that or saying otherwise, I would take it as pure dishonesty or you don't know how to use some basic English words. — Corvus

You didn’t just notice it, you felt the need to mention it, and seem bothered that I’m not acknowledging the affect you believe is inherent in these terms. Why do you think that is?

Isolate: 1. cause (a person or place) to be or remain alone or apart from others.
2. identify (something) and examine or deal with it separately.

Exclude: 1. deny (someone) access to a place, group, or privilege.
2. remove from consideration.

Yes, my choice of words can have negative connotations. But I think it would only bother you this much if you believe that what you’re doing is inherently good. Because you ARE identifying faith and reason and examining or dealing with them separately. And you ARE removing aspects of reality from philosophical consideration. And you have probably always seen this as something good, following in the noble tradition of famous philosophers...

Drawing lines on the mental faculties, or boundary of the senses and reason, is perfectly philosophical expression which had been used for long time by many famous philosophers. — Corvus

That doesn’t make it right or good or proper or even authoritative. It just makes it institutional, like the Nicene Creed. I don’t expect you to recognise this anytime soon. I think I can roughly relate to where you are, though.

You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth — Possibility

It was not just your choice of the words. You kept saying due to the isolation and exclusion, I will never be able to arrive at the truths that need more than reason.

I have been saying, one arrives at the truths which are outside of boundary of reason, by other means than reason, i.e. faith, meditation or prayers, if they are wanting to or able to.

But ok, you meant to be positive, you confirmed. I will take it, your opinion was positive. Thanks.

Yes, my choice of words can have negative connotations. But I think it would only bother you this much if you believe that what you’re doing is inherently good. Because you ARE identifying faith and reason and examining or dealing with them separately. And you ARE removing aspects of reality from philosophical consideration. And you have probably always seen this as something good, following in the noble tradition of famous philosopher — Possibility

I am not bothered at all. As I have said, I will say again. You are keep repeating yourself with the same point, which is negative and not productive for you at all. So I was just pointing out. But somehow you think that I am bothered. This is very strange.

Your argument is not consistent even in one post. One minute you say that, you were not negative, but it was positive, and you even bother to copy and paste meanings of the words from some internet site. But then you cannot help noticing it yourself, those words have negative connotations. And then you turn to negative again. It is strange circulation. My points had been put across a few days ago. There is nothing more productive to add to the main topic of the thread, but then you keep saying isolation and exclusion, and your negativity again. So I am just making my points on this situation.

I think you are not after a sound philosophical debate, but just trying to judge others points and ideas. Not productive at all.