But “self” is a mystery, no? Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, (because the concept of self-identity is perilous if not illusory and really not coherent and not a conversation about any “thing”.) — Fire Ologist
I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism.
Like explaining why a song is beautiful - some things said will only make sense to someone who heard the song. — Fire Ologist
To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain: — Count Timothy von Icarus
What about respecting their decision as a free agent and not trying to impose upon their will by modifying it through rehabilitation, but instead giving them their just dessert? One ought be rewarded for bad behavior and good.
Collapse occurs at the syntactic level, not at the semantic level of possible worlds.
there is a difference between strict contradiction and merely apparent contradictions, or contradictions that arise through equivocation, or not making proper distinctions. And there is a difference between what is beyond human reason, or beyond the domain of logic and of univocal predication, and what is contrary to reason (contradictory). — Count Timothy von Icarus
I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism. — Fire Ologist
the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound. — Fire Ologist
Because unless it was asked with a humble spirit and the open mind of someone who is truly curious — Fire Ologist
Again, you are confusing identify relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G". — Bob Ross
I can give you a more common example. Suppose we can agree to "love and beauty cannot be explained by logic." It does not follow then that "love and beauty involve contradictions," or that "to say one is in love, one must affirm a contradiction." — Count Timothy von Icarus
To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain: — Count Timothy von Icarus
One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason," — Leontiskos
The root problem is that a claim like "not logical" is vague and ambiguous, as it has a very large semantic range and could even be construed in positive or negative ways. It lacks precision and is therefore an unwieldy predication, especially when it is to be leveraged as an accusation. — Leontiskos
a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate. — DifferentiatingEgg
I agree with that. I will say Banno was trying to be precise, pointing out specific contradictions. — Fire Ologist
Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?I'm pretty sure Banno doesn't care about disproving any religious doctrine. He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, @Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions. — frank
Again, you are confusing identi[t]y relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G". — Bob Ross
Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?
That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.
Leon is helpful in these threads becasue he is so predictable. When someone disagrees with him he will variously denigrate them personally, misrepresent what they have said and claim to have already provided the answer. It's a pattern seen across many threads and against many different posters, and is the reason that he is ignored by so many of the more competent folk hereabouts.
He also borrows a strategy from Tim, to bury the discussion in appeals to specialised theological metaphysics, to insist that those who do not engage in the same texts as he does cannot understand his profundity. At heart this is an appeal to authority, together with a refusal to engage charitably.
Tim of course has a better background in all this than any of us, and so never descends to plebeian stance of actually presenting an argument. Hand waving and eloquence is sufficient for him to maintain his circumstance.
Fire Ologist presumes that the posts here are trying to learn about Christianity. That's not something I'm much interested in, given it's ubiquity. Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.
So is this just performance art? Public onanism?
What if Banno's point is more Wittgensteinian, or Davidsonian - that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? Then the arch of his assault here is in showing that all Leon and Tim and the others are doing is also a distasteful display of inappropriate behaviour? That in the face of the ineffable and the infinite, any finite discourse must fail?
But he's not cleaver enough to be doing that, now, is he.
Perhaps it's not a good idea to post these musings. But I'll do it anyway. These interminable threads make my point far more eloquently than I ever could. — Banno
Are you not entertained? — Banno
Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans. — Banno
that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? — Banno
Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts. — Banno
Divine intervention? — Banno
on multiple levels. — Banno
Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is....you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. Turning every subject into the same discussion — Fire Ologist
Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is. — Banno
Divine intervention?
— Banno — Fire Ologist
He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions.
So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it — frank
Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. — Fire Ologist
Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.