I wish you nothing but the best.

Still mad props for finding the quote. — Vaskane

I wish you nothing but the best.

that teaches me nothing — Vaskane

But it does reveal the truth of you.

I wish you nothing but the best.

your weak ability with understanding — Vaskane

ignorant dumbass — Vaskane

your rashness — Vaskane

you being an idiot — Vaskane

getting your ass handed to you — Vaskane

after I had slapped you around for saying stupid shit. — Vaskane

that worm-like reason — Vaskane

Ty now shut up — Vaskane

No. I will not shut up.


I wish you nothing but the best.

I think Pandora's Box would be the better analogy — Wayfarer

Agreed.

I don't know what commentators have made of that, but it is a telling comment. — Wayfarer

And consistent with his notions of technology as the cat that has been let out of the bag or the genie that has been let out of the bottle. Control is an illusion.

how being might take us beyond notion of god. Or something like that. — Tom Storm

Philosophy strikes me as "fools gold" for both the theist and the atheist. And Heidegger's philosophy is no exception.

If the but-you-have-faith-too rhetoric targets me, I could accept that and use it as basis of definition of what faith means to the believer. So, when I get on a plane or cross a street, do I think I can never be hit by a car, or that planes never crash? Obviously not. That which I put my faith in is fallible; I know it to be fallible; and that faith is predicated on that fallibility. I need to put my faith in say a pilot or car drivers, precisely because I know they could mess up and harm me (or even deliberately harm me, who knows?). This works for person-faith, too: you commit to your relationships; you don't let go of that trust easily. And in turn you attempt to act trustworthy, too.

But abstract enough, apply it to God, and I, an atheist, am left with... nothing that makes sense. What it looks like to me is this: From early on, you put your trust in God the way you put your trust in your parents. And by the time you differentiate between fallible people and the triple-omni God, that faith is in place and it needs a target. The meaning of the concept is quite literally what you put your faith in. Basically, faith constitutes God by way of the trust-people metaphor. — Dawnstorm

Fascinating. Faith in entities you know to be fallible and faith in entities you believe to be infallible. If these are different varieties of faith, then the non-believer would subscribe to the former while the believer would subscribe to both? That in and of itself strikes me as a sufficient response to the idea that "you have faith too."

Of course as a good atheist, I have had to deal with a range of apologists and many times had to run through the various well-worn and shop-soiled arguments, which for me come post hoc. — Tom Storm

We have similar experiences. As a good non-atheist, I have had to deal with a range of apologists and many times had to run through the various well-worn and shop-soiled arguments, which for me come post hoc. It can be exhausting. But I am just too lazy to stop. :-)

whose reading of H may not be seen as adequate these days — Tom Storm

Interesting. Sometimes I think it is "fashionable" to diss on Dreyfus. When it came to American Heidegger scholars, there was a time when he was essentially a lone voice in the wilderness. It is nonsensical to hold any person under such circumstances to contemporary standards of adequacy. I suspect there is no philosopher who did more to mainstream Heidegger to American universities.

And many of the most pre-eminent Heidegger scholars of the 21st century studied under Dreyfus, including Mark Wrathall now at Oxford, Sean Kelly now at Harvard, William Blattner now at Georgetown and the late John Haugland who spent most of his teaching career at Pittsburgh. And every one of them loved Dreyfus. I defer to them on the issue of adequacy.

I suspect his thinking is too lofty to incorporate a personal god. — Tom Storm

I disagree. Nothing in his thinking precludes a personal God. Though he was far from being a humble man per se, it would not surprise me if he considered no philosophy to be lofty enough on the issue. And I am confident the least he would say is that it is an issue for theology rather than philosophy. But more than anything, I have come across nothing in his history or in his work to suggest he ever had any significant philosophical interest in the issue.

And my experience is not that Heidegger is difficult to understand because his thinking is lofty (which I don't think it is). Instead, I find it extremely dense and jargon dependent. And my solution is to just keep reading it over and over again.

All the Dreyfus class lectures (N=28) on Division One of Being and Time can be downloaded at:
https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley

I believe I also found, downloaded, and still have copies of the syllabus for the Dreyfus lectures and it does list the pages that one is expected to read prior to the lecture. It was pretty cool being able to read Being and Time in sections and then listen to the Dreyfus lecture on that section. I still listen to the lectures from time to time but generally as background while I wander around the house or around the yard tending to matters.

Sean Kelly's class lectures were once available for download on Harvard's website but I do not think that is still the case. I am glad I downloaded them when I did. But they were recorded early in his career at Harvard and so his approach is recognizably and understandably modeled on Dreyfus. Still, the audio quality of his lectures is superior.

Can you say something about what Heidegger thinks about god or theism? — Tom Storm

Philosophically, Heidegger had little to say regarding God or theism. He was born a Catholic and much of his higher education was financed by the Catholic church in one manner or another. He converted to Protestantism following his marriage. It is my understanding that he took more than a passing interest in pantheism in his later years. Despite what some may say, Heidegger was absolutely not an atheist. And unless something else comes to mind, I believe that is all I can say about Heidegger on this matter. I hope it helps.

I will crush you here — Vaskane

your worm-like reason — Vaskane

Read Nietzsche — Vaskane

Thanks for the recommendation on Nietzsche. Though Heidegger is the philosopher I tend to read most, you may rest assured I have read far more Nietzsche than the average person.

I wish you nothing but the best.

How fucking dumb are you? — Vaskane

Impressive: bullying, demeaning, and spewing ad hominem all in a single sentence.

Again, this is the Philosophy Forum. Instead of providing a dictionary as support for my position, I responded by providing you a synopsis of the supporting views (including a link thereto) of Oxford Professor of Philosophy Mark Wrathall. (he may have retired recently.). I presumed you would find the views of an eminent philosopher more persuasive than a dictionary. Silly me.

Of course, it is possible that you did not understand what Professor Wrathall had to say. After all, I believe that is the point at which you said all you were hearing was "blah, blah, blah." I am pleased to note your hearing seems to have improved a bit.

I use dictionaries as needed. But their necessarily colloquial nature renders them ill suited to philosophy. I have never used one as a primary (let alone only) source of support. Indeed, my experience suggests that people who do use dictionaries as a primary (let alone only) source of support within the context of philosophy usually do not know what they are talking about.

And that is how dumb I am.

I wish you nothing but the best.

Ad hominems — Vaskane

You are using your bullying, demeaning, and spewing of ad hominem in place of an argument in support of your claim that "semantics here does not matter." Fortunately, philosophy does not work that way.

So if I may reiterate, you can either make an argument in support of your claim that "semantics here does not matter" or you can continue bullying, demeaning and attacking me. It matters not to me.

Either way, I will wait here.

load of dog shit — Vaskane

an ignorant fool — Vaskane

worm-like reason — Vaskane

a push over. — Vaskane

You are nothing if not consistent (bullying, demeaning, spewing ad hominem).

It is bad faith to an absurd degree to declare my point to be anything other than the only issue I have argued and the only issue to which I have repeatedly pointed, i.e., your claim that "semantics here does not matter." And since you have chosen to not even engage on the issue to which I have repeatedly pointed, there would be no point to moving the goal posts.

As for being a pushover, since you have yet to even engage on the issue in a reasonable, manner, you may rest assured that I am still standing. And it will take a lot more than anything you have shown to push me over. Seriously, a dictionary?

So I reiterate, you can engage on the issue or you can carry on bullying, demeaning, and spewing ad hominem. But you will not persuade without argument

Either way, I am still here and I am still standing.

Your whole point was to counter what I said. — Vaskane

This is a philosophical forum. This matter began when I had the temerity to challenge your claim that "semantics here does not matter." How dare I! But instead of arguing the issue, you chose to bully, demean, and spew ad hominem in each and every one of your responses.

You can either attempt to persuade me that I am wrong regarding the issue or you can carry on bullying, demeaning, and spewing ad hominem. But doing the latter will not make you right.

Either way, Nietzsche will not help you and I ain't goin' nowhere.

'Virtue is it's own reward — Wayfarer

As if Heidegger would know. :-)

So there's regardless an ontological distinction accorded to humanity (acknowledging that his use of the terminology of ontology is very complex). — Wayfarer

Interesting. And the complexity of Heidegger's terminology notwithstanding, I agree.

However and on some level, being ontologically distinct by actually doing ontology strikes me as a no brainer. And there is no prize for being the only known species to do ontology.

What do we need to do other than convince the innocent they are not capable or prepared to accept the whole truth of something. — kudos

Great stuff. I do not disagree with it. But we often do the opposite by fostering the innocents mistaken belief (and perhaps our own) that we know the "whole truth". And rather than end the innocents continually asking why by admitting we do not know the "whole truth", we find ever more sophisticated ways to say "because I said so."

Meanwhile confidence that isn't faith is making conclusion about the odds, but without really risking anything to make a point? — TiredThinker

I agree.

Though I suspect "confidence" and "faith" are related, I would not consider them synonyms. Generally, one's confidence is more easily eroded than one's faith? And people having the same degree of faith may not necessarily have the same degree of confidence? And wouldn't people be more likely to rely upon faith when their confidence wanes than to rely upon confidence when their faith wanes? They are not the same.

I would agree that "we" don't have a drive for wisdom. Or if we do, it is not equal in all people. Perhaps some are more naturally disposed toward wisdom than others.

Children lose their temporary innocence-advantage pretty quickly. — BC

We don't have a "drive for wisdom" as much as it takes time for individuals to develop it. — BC

Or do we shut it down? The socialization process is often heavily focused upon shutting people up. Though we do try to find kinder ways to shut them up, the goal remains the same.

Great post. If wisdom is something we desire, then do all desire it equally? Or maybe it is something only certain people desire. And when we say things like "I learned that the hard way", aren't we confessing that wisdom may have been thrust upon us? And some of the wisest people I know strike me as people who have never been in search of wisdom per se. Instead, their wisdom seems to be a matter of profiting from their experiences, both good and bad. Great post.

Philosophers are nothing but curious children, and children are our purest philosophers — kudos

I am more likely to agree with the latter than the former. Much of philosophy strikes me as anti-curious and focused more upon shutting down the curious rather than seriously considering their questions.

Socrates may be a good example of the philosopher as curious child but we know what happened to him. His incessant questioning was not well received.

My question came about because of the use of the word 'confidence', which I had laid out in a different context earlier, as an alternative to faith. — Tom Storm

That is an interesting notion. Yet if we think about the way people use the words, I would expect someone's confidence to be more easily eroded than their faith. And couldn't one lose their and still have faith?

I often think of faith as a measure of how deeply a belief is held. Isn't faith what we cling to when our beliefs are under serious attack and our confidence is waning? When it comes to our deepest beliefs, maybe faith is just the last thing we let go of.

Worms double down — Vaskane

Instead of proving the above by example, you could actually discuss the philosophical issues presented. Either way, your dictionary definition, your ad hominem skills, and your deeply profound contributions regarding the variations of faith are noted.

I'll be free from any TPF moderator backlash since you're digging for the meaning of my words. — Vaskane

What do moderators have to do with anything? Are you afraid I am going to tell on you? Though dealing with you would be more pleasant if you were not a bully, that is your problem to deal with. I have no desire to silence you or to adjust your poor behavior. And how un-philosophical of me to actually dig for the meaning of your words.

Semantics didn't matter was a nice way of me saying: don't be a dumbass — Vaskane

Though I appreciate your concern for my psychological development and emotional well-being, you are not my mother. You have no reason to believe that the fear of coming across as a dumbass (or any other fear) will silence me. It certainly hasn't silenced you.

a debate you never should have started because you were completely ignorant about — Vaskane

I again remind you that the discussion began in earnest when I took seriously your suggestions that I exercise "due diligence" and that I should "consult a dictionary." I make no claim to be any more or less ignorant on the subject than anyone else. But you have said nothing to indicate your ignorance is any less complete than mine.

I wish you nothing but the best.

All I hear you saying is "blah blah blah, I don't know the definition of faith." — Vaskane

I remind you that what you choose to hear as "blah, blah, blah" is my response to your criticisms that I had not done my "due diligence" and that perhaps I should "consult a dictionary". I chose not to hear your criticisms as "blah, blah, blah."

The "blah, blah, blah" you choose to hear will become a deeper understanding if you instead choose to hear that common-place definitions are inadequate to uncovering meaningful variations of faith as solicited by the title of the OP, i.e., "Types of faith. What VARIATIONS are there?" (Emphasis added by me.).

You'll notice I never equated the two to be the same, so listing their differences is non sequitur. — Vaskane

You'll notice you "equated the two to be the same" by declaring "semantics here doesn't matter" and by subsequently offering commonplace definitions that either equate "faith" with "strong belief" or equate both as synonyms of the Latin word "fides". Consequently, my listing of their differences is in order.

In closing, I took your criticisms seriously and responded by offering a VARIATION in the concept of faith (as solicited by the title of the OP) that unequivocally asserts significant semantic differences between "faith" and "belief" and that is not encompassed by the common-place definitions you offer. Presuming you would give my criticisms the same good faith consideration I gave your criticisms is a mistake I will not make again.

I wish you nothing but the best.

it is an excellent quote and it took me a while to track it down. But it was worth it. I rely heavily upon Kauffman for my understanding of Nietzsche and was not surprised to find out it was his.

Then I suggest you use a dictionary to find you're wrong. — Vaskane

Seriously? You are going to use a dictionary to throw down the gauntlet on a philosophical forum? :-)

The thread is entitled “Types of faith. What variations are there?” (Emphasis added).

If you had initially identified your variation as a commonplace dictionary-type variation, then I would not have bothered to respond to the notion that "semantics here don't matter." Perhaps the below variation on faith would be more philosophically fruitful.

“It is commonplace to treat belief and faith as synonymous. . . but there are important
differences. . . Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts,
whereas belief is simply something we take to be true.” - Simon Laraway paraphrasing Mark Wrathall.

https://hum.byu.edu/difference-between-faith-and--belief#:~:text=Faith%20is%20a%20different%20thing,we%20take%20to%20be%20true.

Simply put, when it comes to the less commonplace variations on faith, semantics here do matter.

Semantics here don't matter — Vaskane

yes it does

faith works via believing — Vaskane

I think you have that backwards. Believing works vis faith. It seems simple enough that faith is generally what we rely upon when it comes to beliefs regarding the unknowable. When it comes to believing that which can neither be proven true nor false, believing either way must of necessity require faith. For beliefs of a non-empirical nature, what other metric could there be?

There is only one type of faith, blind, faith works via believing, not knowing. — Vaskane

I have faith in what I know.

for me thinking in language is also literally picturing the written word/sentence in the mind's eye, I typically do that when I need to plan a sentence between uttering or writing it, as opposed to just speaking naturally and going with the flow — Lionino

Fascinating.

Whether purely silicone based systems can produce sentience seems impossible to answer currently. Finding evidence of silicone-based life, while unlikely, would really shake this up. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree.

I, for one, don't think in language but in images — Lionino

How do you think when it comes to writing and re-writing?

My paper for my senior seminar almost 40 years ago was entitled Pylyshyn and the Mine/Body Problem. In a sense, the answer will always be no because humans will continually move the goal posts. And AI cannot do that. :-)

Therefore, conversely, it makes no sense to try to apply quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world — and this also applies to philosophical conclusions. — Wolfgang

The transfer of the quantum world to the mesoworld meant philosophy, not technology, — Wolfgang

The above statements strike me as inconsistent. The first seems to include more than philosophy (perhaps science and/or technology?) while the second seems to exclude all but philosophy (including science and/or technology?).

And what is the demarcation line between science/technology/philosophy? And if working technology (transistors as an example) does rely upon both, then does that not have significant philosophical implications?

Please advise.

— Pantagruel

Numbers start at zero. The counting starts at 1. If I am running a 100 yard race, I do not get to start at yard 1.

my last post was intended for you. — ENOAH

and as somewhat of an aside, I greatly appreciate your initial comment to the original question. I would like to discuss it with you. So at some point in the not to distant future, I will contact you via your inbox.

Thank you — ENOAH

You are welcome. And I appreciate all your comments and efforts. As resistant as I sometimes seem to being pushed, pushing me is the most effective way to force me to examine and/or reexamine my positions and to clarify them. And that is priceless.

So thank you.

It is the logical structure underlying language and not mind that is a check against illogical thought. I take this to mean that any illogical thought or propositions would evidently involve a contradiction.and would not be accepted. — Fooloso4

Logic, language, and the world can only make sense to beings for whom logic, language, and the world can make sense.

Why are you and I one of those beings and my hat is not?

I still only get talking the talk from Nietzsche and no walking anywhere. — Fire Ologist

Nietzsche did philosophy from the beginning to the end of his sanity. And he abandoned the ivory tower and did it his way. That was his talk. That was his walk. It was lonely and it ended in madness.