the what and the why of "perception" followed by action (including choice/belief) is of ultimate concern to "philosophy." And for the OP (entirely my reading) it can be understood philosophically; such understanding both derived from and flowing back into ethics or action/incl belief/choice. That drive and understanding are the essence of religion. — ENOAH
If I may step back into meta mode for a moment, I would like to point out that in the OP you promise to provide metaphysical satisfaction to the world, and despite my sincere attempts to feel this satisfaction I keep ending up in a thicket of obfuscating weeds and a Mick Jagger tune playing in my head.
It appears to be an empty promise. — praxis
I understand you to be quite upset at some opinions of mine. — AmadeusD
Here, I see some agreement with scientific metaphysics, in particular on how this is manifested in the debate of determinism and freedom. That said, in your very first post you said:
"My thinking is this: Religion rises out of the radical ethical indeterminacy of our existence. This simply means that we are thrown into a world of ethical issues that, in the most basic analysis, are not resolvable. Yet they insist on resolution with the same apodicticity as logical coercivity. Meaning, just as one cannot but agree with something like modus ponens or the principle of identity in terms of the pure logicality of their intuitive insistence, so one cannot resist the moral insistence of moral redemption."
This smells of the odor of "determinism" from my humble nose. How does "freedom" and "logical coercively" exist where I can continue to feel human and not like the Mac I am typing on. — Richard B
It [awakening] can only be accessed by a turning away from mind and awakening to being. — ENOAH
Religion is a human construction, or as Constance described it, an institution. — praxis
Truth is in present being; not in the I's comings and goings — ENOAH
Observe how well it cauterizes a wound, proving its value, expressing its goodness. — praxis
you're not going to get that tart to your dessert plate — Constance
so here we abstract from all of the contextual variations in which we find the good, bad, should, shouldn't, right, wrong of ethics, and inquire about the nature of what is in what is observed. — Constance
But it’s not in the least bit a contingency. Pain is good. Pain, like pleasure, moves life to homeostasis. — praxis
You think I go too far in abstracting from the contextual because I abstract from the abstracter in the end; I think you do not go far enough because you leave the abstracter in place; you do so because the result is absurd otherwise. A compromise? At least admit the abstracter is a necessary fiction, because ultimately the abstractions are done in its name and for its sake. — ENOAH
Truth is in present being; not in the I's comings and goings — ENOAH
THIS is what the OP is about. There are things you that belong to opinion and things that are certain, putting aside the aporia that questions can heap upon a statement like this can bring up. What if ethics were grounded in the same apodicticity found in logic? Then opinion would yield to certainty.
Religion makes this claim about ethics when it talks about God. Here, we eliminate such fictions, and abide by only what is in the world and the presence of what is before inquiry. An apriori analysis of ethics shows, I argue, and fortunately for us all, that the redemptive and consummatory features of religion actually issue from existence itself with the apodicticity equal to that of logic. That is, one cannot even imagine the bad being good and the good being bad, taken as pure expressions: the meta-good and the meta-bad. — Constance
but it is not the language that is unreal, but the ideas conceived IN language that are in error. If I say the moon is made of cream cheese, I am wrong. — Constance
It is about putting conceptual considerations aside. — Constance
F the institutions when they fail. Don't discard the essence. — ENOAH
meaningful connection with a community if not only available in and through institutions, but also there is no reason why meaningful connections are discarded when a failed institution is discarded.meaningful connection with a community — praxis
P.S., for me, for what it is worth: right.Like putting aside the concepts of good and bad, right? — praxis
there is no reason why meaningful connections are discarded when a failed institution is discarded. — ENOAH
Yes, and as you say, not necessarily so. While I believe that ultimately, even the so called essence of so called religion is a construction and projection: and, more, that religion is patently so, at the institutional level, and as it is practiced conventionally; and, that, therefore, all is "corruptible;" I believe that at least, at the level of so-called essence, religion can work as a tool, no matter how fictional, for "seeing" corruption in institutions, the ego (an established "law" under which this animal is bound to function), no less such an institution; and, therefore, no less corruptible. How? It promotes, nudges, provides, a glimpse into the contingent nature of all such constructions and projections, and that "liberation" or "salvation" may come with a recognition that there is a Truth or Reality "outside" of our "selves."Disillusionment with a religious institution is often experienced as nihilism, for instance. — praxis
I don't know what you are getting at here. You are discussing redemption, and then this looks to be about the notion of "inherent good and bad" or so it seems. — schopenhauer1
Like putting aside the concepts of good and bad, right? — praxis
Redemption is a fairy tale, as is consummation of faith, unless there is an absolute decree making it so. What would this be? Traditionally, God. But what is God once the traditions and bad metaphysics are removed? I am arguing that the surviving metaphysical residua of a God reduction down its essence is metaethics. — Constance
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.