We do have Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Emotion (passions) and Ethics etc.
But their way of studying these subjects are different from the religion or psychology or ethics themselves.

In Western Philosophical tradition, they investigate logical correctness of the terminology, and their sayings, codes, principles etc, whether they are making sense in logical point of view. So it is critical study of the subjects rather than learning the subject themselves.

Is that what you think I’m doing? Or is this another strawman argument? Try reading my definition again. — Possibility

Yes, I think you have been emotionally stretching yourselves rather than engaging a debate.
It is like, I said "Tokyo is not in Europe. It is in Asia. They have different weather compared to Norway.", and
youz have been saying "Oh, you discarded us, you denied us, you are a racist. Maybe not quite racist, but a chauvinist. yawn yawn"

Get over it. Read some Hume at least, and History of Western Philosphy by Russell, before coming to the debates.

Hume said "Reason is slave of Passion." Because it tells you things, but cannot make you to act. It is Passion which does it. I or Hume couldn't have been a chauvinist or any ist, when kept saying Reason is a universal tool to tell things to you, and is slave of passion. (Hume, Enquires and Treaties of Human Nature, somewhere).

In Western Philosophical tradition, they investigate logical correctness of the terminology, and their sayings, codes, principles etc, whether they are making sense in logical point of view. So it is critical study of the subjects rather than learning the subject themselves. — Corvus

Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying...

Hume said "Reason is slave of Passion." Because it tells you things, but cannot make you to act. It is Passion which does it. I or Hume couldn't have been a chauvinist or any ist, when kept saying Reason is a universal tool to tell things to you, and is slave of passion. (Hume, Enquires and Treaties of Human Nature, somewhere). — Corvus

Right. So, despite what Reason might ‘tell’ you (without language, mind you), whatever you think, say and do is determined by Passion. - including everything you’ve written here. So you can’t simply bracket out ‘emotion’, no matter how logical you think you’re being. It’s in the very language you use to give voice to Reason. It’s in the choices you make to address only certain elements in what I’ve written, while ignoring others. To pay attention to only some of what Reason has to ‘tell’ you. This is why Russell tried to reduce language to mathematical formula (something I would argue Lao Tzu achieved with more success in traditional Chinese), and why Wittgenstein recognised the need for silence in the end. There is more to correct reasoning than logic.

Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying... — Possibility

There is more to correct reasoning than logic. — Possibility

This time, let me ask you questions.

1. What is Philosophy in your thought?
2. What is your definition of Reality?

1. What is Philosophy in your thought? — Corvus

I’ve already answered this question here. Twice.

Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. — Possibility

2. What is your definition of Reality? — Corvus

Let’s start with a standard philosophical definition:

Reality: existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.

So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language.

I’ve already answered this question here. Twice.

Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth.
— Possibility — Possibility

It sounded like not Philosophy defined by philosophical view point, but from a psychology or layman. It is just too loose definition, and unclear. It does not mention anything about methodology of the subject.
"determine a model of truth"? by how?. Do you want to determine a model of truth, but deny the importance of logic and reason?

So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language. — Possibility

Language alone would be insufficient. I am not sure if language alone can cover and reflect the whole picture of mental activities such as thinking, believing, imagination and judgement. Your thinking is very much limited. I feel that reality and logic and reasoning are closely related. If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, then something is wrong somewhere, and you need to find out about that.

Philosophy deals with every subject in universe, but its methodology is different from other subject. So if you are doing Philosophy of Religion, then you don't talk about the religion itself, but the criteria for logical validity with reason and reality, of the religion at investigation. To me, that is the core point of Philosophy.

Ignoring and denouncing the relation between logic, reason and reality sound utterly addlepated.

It sounded like not Philosophy defined by philosophical view point, but from a psychology or layman. It is just too loose definition, and unclear. It does not mention anything about methodology of the subject.
"determine a model of truth"? by how?. Do you want to determine a model of truth, but deny the importance of logic and reason? — Corvus

I am not denying that logic and reason play a part, but they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth. The methodology is part of the model itself, and should account for not just the variability of experience (ie. conceptual and ethical structures), but also the variability of reasoning (ie. logic and language structures).

The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant.

So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language.
— Possibility

Language alone would be insufficient. I am not sure if language alone can cover and reflect the whole picture of mental activities such as thinking, believing, imagination and judgement. Your thinking is very much limited. I feel that reality and logic and reasoning are closely related. If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, then something is wrong somewhere, and you need to find out about that. — Corvus

I agree that language is insufficient. I’m saying that any philosophy which fails to account for the limitations of language is further removed from reality than they realise. I’m saying that language structures restrict thinking, believing, imagination and judgement, and so investigating logical correctness within a particular language structure only limits these mental activities further.

If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, how far back will you go to restructure? If you employ a set methodology that gives primacy to logic and reason within a Western philosophical discourse, how can you investigate the correctness of that methodology?

I get that clinging to a logical foundation or reasonable methodology gives the illusion of certainty. But what if that’s where you’re wrong? How will you ever know?

they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth. — Possibility

Could you give some examples on this? I am not sure what experiences you are talking about here, and where it came from.

The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant. — Possibility

They make sense, when one is reading the book "Critique of Pure Reason" with the context, but when someone is just saying it or written down out of blue without telling where it came from, then it can cause confusion. Kant has been talking about them in his grand scheme of human understanding how they all work.

But when you just say it, one will wonder, what imagination, understanding and judgement? Because they are always imagination of something, understanding of something or judement of something. How can you just talk about empty imagination, understanding and judgement without any contents or objects? It just sounded abstract and empty and meaningless.

If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, how far back will you go to restructure? If you employ a set methodology that gives primacy to logic and reason within a Western philosophical discourse, how can you investigate the correctness of that methodology?

I get that clinging to a logical foundation or reasonable methodology gives the illusion of certainty. But what if that’s where you’re wrong? How will you ever know? — Possibility

You keep verifying and validating. You don't restructure anything. Restructuring comes automatically after the verification and validation. Reason and logic is the tool for that exercise. But without co-relation of reason, logic and reality, your verification and validation will never be possible.

Philosophy is located in culture, Western philosophy cannot be Philosospy because the world has only recently become such an open, easily traversed place. Global culture will spawn Global philosophy, a justification or rejection of societal rules, ideas, beliefs that span the whole world.

T claim Western Philosophy doesn't exist is to claim that the West doesn't exist. Or that mindsets and thought patterns are not different in multiple cultures. It might be a generalisation, yes. But the old thinkers that you so adore interacted with other philosophers, Italian philosophers with german philosophers and so on, the resulting back and forth of ideas and philosophies can be called Western Philosphy. Or in the East, Eastern Philosophy. I suppose Western Philosophy can also refer to what some might consider Christian-influenced Philosophy. Religion does form culture.

they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth.
— Possibility

Could you give some examples on this? I am not sure what experiences you are talking about here, and where it came from. — Corvus

Well, that was badly worded on my part - sorry. I was trying to say that methodology is limited when a privileged place (over experience) is given to reason and logic. When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth.

The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant.
— Possibility

They make sense, when one is reading the book "Critique of Pure Reason" with the context, but when someone is just saying it or written down out of blue without telling where it came from, then it can cause confusion. Kant has been talking about them in his grand scheme of human understanding how they all work.

But when you just say it, one will wonder, what imagination, understanding and judgement? Because they are always imagination of something, understanding of something or judement of something. How can you just talk about empty imagination, understanding and judgement without any contents or objects? It just sounded abstract and empty and meaningless. — Corvus

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. And I’m not talking about any contents or objects, but the faculties themselves. This is a common error that originates with the translation of Kant’s ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft‘ into English, and the failure of many philosophers to even read this third critique. He’s not referring to the actual ‘judgement (urteils) of something’, as in CofPR, but to the faculty of judgement - not just the capacity to judge, but the pure possibility of human judgement - which influences both reason and ethics at an a priori level.

But here Kant glimpses beyond reason, and recognises free, non-judgemental harmony between the faculties of imagination and understanding as the realm of ‘genius’, wisdom, sagacity. He left the door open to a broader approach to philosophy...

You keep verifying and validating. You don't restructure anything. Restructuring comes automatically after the verification and validation. Reason and logic is the tool for that exercise. But without co-relation of reason, logic and reality, your verification and validation will never be possible. — Corvus

Verifying and validating against what? Against your conception of reality? Against logic or reason?

It is the structure of this co-relation that is the key: the model of truth. But where does experience fit into this? Without an understanding of how feeling affects our perception of reality, reason or logic, and how this affected perception influences attention and effort, your verification and validation will never be accurate in relation to reality. At best you have a prediction.

Well, that was badly worded on my part - sorry. I was trying to say that methodology is limited when a privileged place (over experience) is given to reason and logic. When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth. — Possibility

Experience is another abstract terminology, which is not clear. Experience, to me, is something that you have gone through in the past? It is also always about something. It has contents which is private and past. So what do you mean by privileged place over experience?

To me, experience is like memory? Or it is not even that, but it is so abstract term, I am not sure if it can be used for meaningful tool for arriving at truths. Perhaps, you could reflect or compare something with your own experience? But still you must use reason to do that. Experience sounds like just pile of personal memories of someone on something.

In Philosophy I feel that every issue we are discussing is current, and up-to-date, now issue. We can be talking about the ancient philosophies of course, but we are discussing and contemplating and investigating now. So your saying that "When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth."
I am not quite getting it again. Why do you have to filter all experience logically and filtered through reason? Could you give daily life example for that?

You have a philosophical issue to investigate, and analyse, and come to conclusion via verification or validation. And maybe sometimes, your experience on something might help in that process, if it is related to the topic, background or conclusion, then you might reflect or base on the experience in coming to the conclusion and truth. But is is not necessary step to take always.

I will consider the next part when time is permitting. Just concentrating the part by part whenever I have a chance to be back here.

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. — Possibility

I feel that "experience" is just far too loose and abstract term in defining methodology for arriving at truths from my description above.

And you cannot just pick out one school or philosopher and use his ideas and definition to define the whole Western Philosophy. As I have been saying, there have been too many divergent schools and ideas even in Western Philosophy, hence why I have been talking in terms of the tradition and prevailing attitudes of Western Philosophy. And I based my own definition from that.

Using Kant's terminology to define the whole Western Philosophy would be too narrow and wrong too to cover the whole Western Philosophy. We can only extract the common denominator from the tradition, and establish our own definition. I feel that it is more practical and constructive.

Ok, you can have your own definition on the WP, no one will tell you that you can't. But we can still debate whether yours is making sense and why mine is more sensible definition than yours.

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. And I’m not talking about any contents or objects, but the faculties themselves. This is a common error that originates with the translation of Kant’s ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft‘ into English, and the failure of many philosophers to even read this third critique. He’s not referring to the actual ‘judgement (urteils) of something’, as in CofPR, but to the faculty of judgement - not just the capacity to judge, but the pure possibility of human judgement - which influences both reason and ethics at an a priori level.

But here Kant glimpses beyond reason, and recognises free, non-judgemental harmony between the faculties of imagination and understanding as the realm of ‘genius’, wisdom, sagacity. He left the door open to a broader approach to philosophy... — Possibility

In Kant, experience and truths is only possible, when you allow the inherent reason and sensory experience are combined. He distinguished different kind of reasons - Pure Reason (for general perception and mathematical perception), Practical Reason (for ethical and aesthetic judgements). These reasons are inborn, and universal. They are transcendental and categorical. It is the foundation for all human knowledge.

But you cannot know Ding-An-Sich, which is God, Freedom and Death and so on. These items does not provide you with the universal sensory data. You must trust them, or presume them or come to some sort of conclusion by some other means than knowledge in general.

This is something that can go on in 1000s of pages, but my idea is just from my fuzzy memory of reading Kan 10 year ago. But you get the gist, and appreciate reason is most significant foundation in Western Philosophy.

Verifying and validating against what? Against your conception of reality? Against logic or reason?

It is the structure of this co-relation that is the key: the model of truth. But where does experience fit into this? Without an understanding of how feeling affects our perception of reality, reason or logic, and how this affected perception influences attention and effort, your verification and validation will never be accurate in relation to reality. At best you have a prediction. — Possibility

Yeah, same point again. verify and validate against what? If you read Kant, you surely would know against what by now. You have universal categorical perceptual tool in your mind called "REASON". That is what you veryfy against.

OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue.

Still the best tool human has for the verification and validation is 'reason" and logic. If one doesn't see, or agree to this, then I have no other way to convince than tell him to meditate or pray for the truths he is after.

Experience: the observing, encountering, or undergoing of things generally as they occur in the course of time. Practical contact with and observation of facts and events. Any event or occurrence that leaves an impression on someone. Empirical evidence.

I want to be clear that I am not defining the whole of Western Philosophy - I am defining the practise of philosophy as I understand it. I find it amusing that you consider my approach to be too narrow simply because of the words I’ve used, yet ‘extracting the common denominator from the tradition’ and the ‘prevailing attitudes’ of Western Philosophy to define all philosophy is not narrow? It’s a bit like defining ‘humanity’ by extracting the ‘common denominator’ from patriarchal tradition and the prevailing attitudes of men.

The reference I made to Kant was to counter your suggestion that my definition was formed outside of philosophical discourse - a ‘layman’s definition’, I think were your words. Regardless of the terms, the methodology behind them marked the beginning of a shift in both common denominator and prevailing attitudes for many philosophers, opening Western philosophy up to influence from art, literature and Eastern traditions, among others, and enabling philosophers to critique the foundations of language, the structures of logic and the supposed ‘essentialism’ of experience. But I imagine these influences were considered to be diluting the ‘purity’ of an orthodox Western focus on the primacy of Reason. Perhaps these influences were tolerated only insofar as philosophers attempted to assimilate the discussion within Western philosophical discourse, concealing their ‘otherness’ lest they offend the sensibilities of purists such as yourself.

In Kant, experience and truths is only possible, when you allow the inherent reason and sensory experience are combined. He distinguished different kind of reasons - Pure Reason (for general perception and mathematical perception), Practical Reason (for ethical and aesthetic judgements). These reasons are inborn, and universal. They are transcendental and categorical. It is the foundation for all human knowledge. — Corvus

You’re only making it clearer to me that you’re unfamiliar with his third critique. I can’t say that I’m surprised.

OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue. — Corvus

Separate from philosophy?

Just a few rushed comments. I’ll try and address the rest at a later time...

You’re only making it clearer to me that you’re unfamiliar with his third critique. I can’t say that I’m surprised — Possibility

I have all the books, and read them years ago light heartedly. I know what they are about roughly. I could reread them and refresh my memory, but I feel that Kant's Critique is not something that to be discussed in detail here.

Separate from philosophy? — Possibility

Separate from the question on what reality is.

I want to be clear that I am not defining the whole of Western Philosophy — Possibility

I don't believe it is a possible task for you anyway.

I find it amusing that you consider my approach to be too narrow simply because of the words I’ve used, yet ‘extracting the common denominator from the tradition’ and the ‘prevailing attitudes’ of Western Philosophy to define all philosophy is not narrow? — Possibility

That is just my way of the defining. You have yours.

It’s a bit like defining ‘humanity’ by extracting the ‘common denominator’ from patriarchal tradition and the prevailing attitudes of men. — Possibility

No. Humanity is not Philosophy. I made clear that Philosophy is a very unique subject, different from all other subjects. Humanity is not even a subject. Humanity is - well it will have many definitions I am sure, but it is not a subject, art or science.

The reference I made to Kant was to counter your suggestion that my definition was formed outside of philosophical discourse - a ‘layman’s definition’, I think were your words. — Possibility

It was obvious that you intended to bring Kant into the debate just to counter the opinion on the "Layman's definition", which suddenly sounded all too abstract and unclear, because a few days ago, you have been saying that reason and logic have no place in philosophy. Without these faculties, you cannot even talk about imagination, understanding or judgement, because these mental activities are based on reason essentially and logic to some degree. It was totally conflicting argument and definition, and had no consistency whatsoever between them.

appreciate reason is most significant foundation in Western Philosophy. — Corvus

Again, I’m not denying this - my point is that this foundation does not then define what Philosophy is or should be. Philosophy that ventures beyond the capacity of reason does not cease to be philosophy. And methodologies to determine a model of truth without approaching it from (or deferring to) a Western foundation of Reason should not be excluded from the practise of philosophy.

Again, I’m not denying this - my point is that this foundation does not then define what Philosophy is or should be. Philosophy that ventures beyond the capacity of reason does not cease to be philosophy. — Possibility

Perhaps that's where our difference lies. To me, knowledge and truths beyond reason are in the realm of religion or psychology or whatever, but they are not philosophy. What cannot be said, sensed, talked or verified is not subject of philosophy. They are mysticism.

Perhaps that's where our difference lies. To me, knowledge and truths beyond reason are in the realm of religion or psychology or whatever, but they are not philosophy. What cannot be said, sensed, talked or verified is not subject of philosophy. They are mysticism. — Corvus

Yes, this is where we differ. Because if you’re going to judge the validity of a particular model of truth (ie. a religion, mysticism or philosophy), then you need to understand how its methodology differs from your own traditional ‘Western Philosophy’ model - keeping in mind that your traditional model has its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning, etc.

It just seems to me as if you’re judging the validity of other models against a methodology that is itself limited in relation to truth. Your claim that reason is the ‘best’ tool for verification and validation (ie. an illusion of certainty) is argued within a tradition that dismisses other tools as ‘not philosophy’ because they don’t follow this tradition which claims (arbitrarily) that reason is the ‘best’ tool... It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, an imaginative ‘what if’ that ‘worked’ consistently enough to be consolidated into a formidable institution - rather like Christianity, or geocentrism - and now fights for ‘survival’ by beating back all but the most ‘pure’ fundamentalism.

I agree that reason is an effective tool in determining an accurate model of truth - to a point. Arguing from reason that reason is the ‘best’ tool is simply measuring against itself. The only way to verify this claim is to find a methodology for parsing ANY and ALL models of truth: religion, mysticism, science, philosophy, subjective experience, etc. To do that, philosophy needs to include discussions of human experience beyond reason. And it needs to accept the possibility of a more accurate model of truth that destabilises human reason from its central, static position around which experience revolves. Another ‘Copernican Turn’, to borrow from Kant again.

hen you need to understand how its methodology differs from your own traditional ‘Western Philosophy’ model — Possibility

I wouldn't treat mysticism, religion and any other non philosophical subject with the philosophical methodology. If I am interested in a mysticism (which I am not in real life), then I would just go and read up about the mysticism. I will not try to bring mysticism under philosophical methodology, unless such situation had risen for some some peculiar circumstance, which I doubt.

keeping in mind that your traditional model has its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning, etc — Possibility

Could you please explain in detail on your saying "its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning etc"? What serious problems are you talking about here?

It just seems to me as if you’re judging the validity of other models against a methodology that is itself limited in relation to truth. Your claim that reason is the ‘best’ tool for verification and validation (ie. an illusion of certainty) is argued within a tradition that dismisses other tools as ‘not philosophy’ because they don’t follow this tradition which claims (arbitrarily) that reason is the ‘best’ tool... It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, an imaginative ‘what if’ that ‘worked’ consistently enough to be consolidated into a formidable institution - rather like Christianity, or geocentrism - and now fights for ‘survival’ by beating back all but the most ‘pure’ fundamentalism. — Possibility

My claim was not reason is the only and best tool, but rather, I was saying for Western Philosophical tradition rationalism has been dominating trend, and I follow the tradition.

Anyhow I feel that you are repeating yourself with the same thing, on which I have already clearly explained in the previous posts.

I wouldn't treat mysticism, religion and any other non philosophical subject with the philosophical methodology. If I am interested in a mysticism (which I am not in real life), then I would just go and read up about the mysticism. I will not try to bring mysticism under philosophical methodology, unless such situation had risen for some some peculiar circumstance, which I doubt. — Corvus

But you ARE treating them with your philosophical methodology by isolating and excluding them from any critical discussion of truth.

Could you please explain in detail on your saying "its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning etc"? What serious problems are you talking about here? — Corvus

This:

OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue. — Corvus

Bracketing out skepticism from a discussion of truth or reality is just a way of avoiding uncertainty. So, we can make these assertions about reality IFF our underlying logical assumptions and the meanings we attribute to language are true about reality. That we cannot use reason alone to verify this is a serious problem with the methodology in relation to determining an accurate model of truth. But you’re not after accuracy or correctness, only an illusion of certainty. And you’re willing to ignore, isolate or exclude any human capacity to access truth beyond reason in order to retain that illusion.

My claim was not reason is the only and best tool, but rather, I was saying for Western Philosophical tradition rationalism has been dominating trend, and I follow the tradition. — Corvus

It sure sounds like it’s your claim:

Still the best tool human has for the verification and validation is 'reason" and logic. If one doesn't see, or agree to this, then I have no other way to convince than tell him to meditate or pray for the truths he is after. — Corvus

You keep oscillating between assertions of dominance and obedience to ‘tradition’.

But you ARE treating them with your philosophical methodology by isolating and excluding them from any critical discussion of truth. — Possibility

I was drawing lines between subjects that can be dealt with reason, and subjects which is out of boundary of debate with reason. I cannot understand why you must be negative and keep saying "isolating and excluding".

Bracketing out skepticism from a discussion of truth or reality is just a way of avoiding uncertainty. So, we can make these assertions about reality IFF our underlying logical assumptions and the meanings we attribute to language are true about reality. That we cannot use reason alone to verify this is a serious problem with the methodology in relation to determining an accurate model of truth. But you’re not after accuracy or correctness, only an illusion of certainty. And you’re willing to ignore, isolate or exclude any human capacity to access truth beyond reason in order to retain that illusion. — Possibility

Again, the same points :) you are the one self oscillating on the same points.
Topics that are out of boundary of reason should be left to the faith and mysticism, because you cannot come to concrete truths or conclusion by reasoning. So boundary has been drawn on the reason and faith. It is not isolating or excluding.

I was drawing lines between subjects that can be dealt with reason, and subjects which is out of boundary of debate with reason. I cannot understand why you must be negative and keep saying "isolating and excluding". — Corvus

Topics that are out of boundary of reason should be left to the faith and mysticism, because you cannot come to concrete truths or conclusion by reasoning. So boundary has been drawn on the reason and faith. It is not isolating or excluding. — Corvus

Drawing arbitrary boundaries and lines, declaring what is in and out - please tell me how this is not isolating and excluding. There are no boundaries except those we draw in our own limited perception. I’m not expecting truth to be concrete or conclusive - that doesn’t mean it can’t be both accurate and practical.

Drawing arbitrary boundaries and lines, declaring what is in and out - please tell me how this is not isolating and excluding. There are no boundaries except those we draw in our own limited perception. I’m not expecting truth to be concrete or conclusive - that doesn’t mean it can’t be both accurate and practical. — Possibility

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.

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.

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.