Hey Cic!

I don't know about you, but it seemed a bit like gibberish. For one, he didn't speak to the nature of human reason relative to the relationships of human belief systems.

Did you understand what he said?

Or maybe he can elucidate some. We're patient, I'll keep asking him

For one, he didn't speak to the nature of human reason relative to the relationships of human belief systems. — 3017amen

It would seem to me that the employment of reason under his definition would be the application of logic to the "relationship of human belief systems", whatever you mean that to be.

:100:

"Religion is not, as Hegel thought, the revelation of the Infinite in the finite; rather, it is the self-discovery by the finite of its own infinite nature. God is the form in which the human spirit first discovers its own essential nature." (Harvey 1995, 27) — j0e

Great point, because I did not notice an explanation in his thesis.

What is the nature of human belief systems?

This is the third time I've asked you please answer the question.

And mere belief that which is merely claimed. Unsupportable and unprovable, in some cases the unprovability being an essential feature. Religion an obvious source but also experience, practice, common sense, collected community wisdom: all these used not as ground but to underpin argument by claiming to stand as proofs of premises: all these, then, great impersonators of reason. For if they were objects of reason, then they would be provable, thus no longer mere beliefs. — tim wood

Mr Wood,

I did some digging, and went back to your thesis and found the foregoing. Frankly, your suppositions seem weak and unsupported. You seem to be making what some of us call in logic as an either-or argument. Nonetheless, perhaps you have the answer to these concerns, but it may be simply difficult for you to articulate. Hence, let's start with these questions, then go from there:

1. What are "objects of reason"?
2. What makes things-in-themselves "provable"?

What is the nature of human belief systems? — 3017amen

I take your "nature" to be the question "what it means to be." I don't know anything about non-human belief systems. And for present purpose I see no useful distinction to be made between a "belief system" and just a belief. Further, as a belief is in some sense an expression about something not existing independent of the mind that holds it, it makes sense to ask at the same time what it means to be a person (the mind) who holds the belief. This reduces your question to: what does it mean to be a person who holds a belief, this imo being simpler, clearer, and more straightforward.

A belief is an idea about something that at the same time does not constitute knowledge of that thing, for if the content of the belief were knowledge, then the belief itself would be knowledge and not belief. Ordinary usage can sometimes confuse the two. At the moment, for example, I believe my bicycle is in the entryway. But until I undertake some test to establish the fact of the matter, it stands as mere belief, notwithstanding its plausibility as knowledge.

A person who holds a belief (who understands that no belief in itself by itself constitutes knowledge), may do so for lots of reasons. good and bad. It is an axiom of mine that belief as belief gets a free pass. Difficulties can arise when a believer insists his belief is knowledge, or what he believes is true in itself, or predicates some action on the basis of the belief.

What it means to be a person who holds a belief - and I think we all hold some beliefs - is that in some way to be invested in something which cannot be independently verified or established as anything other than a belief. Beliefs, then, aren't true; they're not facts. Their sole utility, it seems to me, to provide a template to place over the world, the template being a source of guidance.

The nature of belief systems, to return to your question as asked, is that they are exemplary fictions useful, if at all, for guidance. And I add that, being fictive, it's best to take some care in the use and consumption thereof, because in their nature as grounds for anything real, they are really toxic. In this sense, belief perhaps - maybe - as medicine. But too often a kind of psychotropic drug.

"Religion is not, as Hegel thought, the revelation of the Infinite in the finite; rather, it is the self-discovery by the finite of its own infinite nature" — j0e

Well that depends on how one experiences the infinite. I don't think you can force it to happen through reading or yoga. It might be like Hegel says, a receiving of something that feels foreign. Hegel believed in "God" in this sense, but it's something that happens through self-discovery nonetheless

The nature of belief systems, to return to your question as asked, is that they are exemplary fictions useful, if at all, for guidance. And I add that, being fictive, it's best to take some care in the use and consumption thereof, because in their nature as grounds for anything real, they are really toxic. In this sense, belief perhaps - maybe - as medicine. But too often a kind of psychotropic drug. — tim wood

Mr. Wood,

This only leads to more confusion, because you seem to be saying in your thesis that beliefs are grounded in reality, yet you haven't even defined what reality is... . Now you're saying reality is comprised of 'fictions'. Can you explain how these 'fictions' of reality interacts with one's belief system? To help you, I will re-state the concerns:

"I did some digging, and went back to your thesis and found the foregoing. Frankly, your suppositions seem weak and unsupported. You seem to be making what some of us call in logic as an either-or argument. Nonetheless, perhaps you have the answer to these concerns, but it may be simply difficult for you to articulate. Hence, let's start with these questions, then go from there:"

1. What are "objects of reason"?
2. What makes things-in-themselves "provable"?

There are many more questions, but let's parse these first. Sorry to put you on the spot, but your thesis does not seem cogent or even well thought out. Perhaps, as you say in your metaphor, "that knowledge is our kind of beer"; I'm not sure we want to be drinking your kind of beer :joke:

No more questions, 3017. I think - and have reason to think - that your honesty and your agendas are suspect. Make do, then, with what you've got.

1. What are "objects of reason"?
2. What makes things-in-themselves "provable"?

Third time asking, please answer these questions.

What are you afraid of Mr. Wood?