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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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"?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

"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:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?