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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.