What do you understand under the term Transcendentalist "genius?" — Jafar

The term 'genius' as used by the Transcendentalist Emerson. As expressed in the passage from Emerson quoted by T Clark:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men-that is genius.

It seems to me to be an odd mix of individualism and universalism. An overestimation of the reliability of intuition.

I wonder if we can get past these factors? — Tom Storm

I think the best we can do is be aware of them. Even when we examine our beliefs we cannot do so by stepping outside of them. Philosophical dialogue can help, but we often tend to defend our beliefs because they are our own rather then test them to allow them to stand or fall based on the strength of the argument. Easier said than done.

I too am suspicious of the idea of the Transcendentalist's "genius". It easily becomes pernicious self-flattery.

Agreed, but the purpose behind that examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works. If they don't fit, then you can either reject them, change your own understanding, or do a little of both. — T Clark

Your tell Jafar:

... many of us here disagree with Fooloso4’s opinion. — T Clark

as if anything I said was intended to:

stop [him] from putting [his] thoughts into words — T Clark

Your claim that "the purpose behind the examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works." is not a point of disagreement with what I said:

It is critical and evaluative. It is dialogical in a double sense - both a dialogue with others and a dialogue with oneself. — Fooloso4

You should appreciate the irony of him giving his personal preference without justification in this instance. — T Clark

The only irony here is that once you get passed your misreading of what I said, it turns out that you support what I said. As for the others you presume to speak for I see no evidence of their alleged disagreement.

I think it's also important to be able to formulate an idea and also be challenged on it. — Jafar

I found the following from my response to you to be very helpful:

... dialogue with others should be impersonal. — Fooloso4

The Daodejing says:

practice extreme tenuousness

(Chapter 16)

Tenuousness is an openness, a lack of insistence. It is to allow things to show themselves as they are rather than imposing some conceptual scheme or structure on them. There is freedom in the play of ideas unfettered by being too attached to your opinions.

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Good question! It involves a sense of detachment from whatever your opinion is. Of being willing and able to be wrong. To be able to change your mind. It involves an acknowledgement of ignorance.

There is an ancient practice of defending a position that is at odds with the one you currently hold. The benefits include - developing a greater flexibility of thought, looking at the issue without having a stake in it, seeing things from another perspective, and even being able to give a stronger account of your own position after examining the alternatives.

I'm very interested in how other people ask "good" questions. — Jafar

I would say you are well on your way!

You shouldn’t let it stop you from putting your thoughts into words. — T Clark

Jafar said:

I feel like I never really have anything to say on a given topic, or I feel that I do not know enough about a given subject to say anything meaningful. — Jafar

Telling him to put his thoughts into words is to ignore the thoughts he has put into words.

Articulating your thoughts is an essential part of philosophy, but there is, in my opinion, more to philosophy. It involves a critical examination and evaluation of those thoughts and opinions, whether they are your thoughts and opinions or someone else's.

I really value philosophy as a means of introspection and a way to practice it, but I also get the impression that there is a lot to learn from others through discussion. — Jafar

We are in agreement:

It is dialogical in a double sense - both a dialogue with others and a dialogue with oneself. — Fooloso4

The points you [clarification: T Clark] seem to be missing is that: 1) giving an opinion is not having a discussion, and 2) there is value in being a silent participant is a discussion.

I feel like I never really have anything to say on a given topic, or I feel that I do not know enough about a given subject to say anything meaningful. — Jafar

I think this puts you at a distinct advantage. All too often giving an opinion is mistaken for doing philosophy. Rather then telling others what you think inquire into what others say on topics that interest you.

Inquiry is a mode of thinking. It is active rather than passive. It is critical and evaluative. It is dialogical in a double sense - both a dialogue with others and a dialogue with oneself. Dialogue with one's self is deeply personal, but dialogue with others should be impersonal. The former is about you, the latter should not be about you, it should be about the ideas at issue.

Much, however. depends on your priorities. Whether you regard philosophy as a way of finding answers or a way of asking questions. You might consider: what do you want and expect from philosophy?

He's peddling Crypto now. Act now! Don't wait! What do you have to lose? @180 Proof

A book based on facts cannot compete against a manufactured TV and magazine image developed over decades that gives him the appearance of being the embodiment of the self-made man having attained the pinnacle of the American Dream.

Good analogy!

Vance knows full well that the problem with such lies is that the MAGA - nauts will believe it and act on it. Vance may be unscrupulous but he is not stupid.

And then there is Vance who openly admits lying in order to get attention.

I ask you to place yourself in the shoes of some form of supreme being, whatever that may be or mean to you. — Benj96

Get some new shoes?

Maybe it's their right to do so. — Eros1982

It is not a question of their right but of what is right.

Turning Kamala into a hero overnight, crediting her with qualities she does not have, etc. — Eros1982

The public response to her campaign is news worthy. Perhaps there is some gushing from some sources but this is not as serious an issue as Trump's being unfit for office.

These media do not sound serious or sincere every time that election approaches. — Eros1982

The line between news and entertainment has been blurred.

If the investigators, reporters, and producers at NPR have, based on the facts, concluded that he is a serious danger to the US democracy and groups of people don't they have a journalistic responsibility to say so?

What else do you want to know about me?

For instance, what does Trump traveling to the 9/11 memorial with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist imply? — praxis

Great question and observation. This allows him to say something without using words while leaving him an out. Having an out is very important to him. He can just deny that he believes what she says, but why bring her?

Labour conditions, human rights, pollution and build quality are all issues. — Benkei

China is moving car manufacturing to Mexico. Trump's threat of a blood bath referred to this. Of course, American car manufacturers also make cars in Mexico.

To say that 12x12 =144 is a hinge proposition is to think of it as a rule for arriving at the product 144. — Joshs

Wittgenstein calls it a proposition not a rule. We follow rules. We do not follow propositions. Propositions are either true or false. Calling it a hinge does not change that.

That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some
propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn.

(OC 341)

That is to say, it belongs to the logic of our scientific investigations that certain things are in
deed not doubted.

(OC 342)

If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put.

(OC 343).

It is not, as some would have it, that a hinge is neither true nor false, it is that its truth is not doubted.

The result of a calculation can be true or false but the rule for arriving at the result is neither true nor false. The rule merely stipulates the criterion for determining what would constitute the correct or incorrect answer. — Joshs

What is the rule for arriving at the answer? When we calculate correctly we arrive at the correct answer. Are there infinite rules for the infinite amount of numbers that can be multiplied? Does anyone know or follow these rules or do they calculate?

Or, perhaps you are wrong!

Deleted. I decided that there is no benefit in responding to your churlishness.

To say that hinges are justified in any epistemic sense is to miss the main thrust of OC. It would be to "...grant you [Moore] all the rest (OC 1)." — Sam26

There is not a single agreed upon sense or meaning or assumptions that define the term 'epistemic', but I do not think we can deny that epistemology deals with the problem of knowledge. Clearly from beginning to end Wittgenstein was concerned with the problem of knowledge. It is one thing to claim that his epistemology in OC differs from more traditional views, but quite another to deny that it is epistemology. Annalisa Coliva and Danièle Moyal-Sharrock have edited a book titled "Hinge Epistemology"

Hinge propositions are not subject to verification or falsification (the doubt) within the system — Sam26

In OC Wittgenstein identifies one hinge proposition: 12x12=144. This propositions is true. 12x12 = any other number is false. If one doubts it, it can quickly and easily be demonstrated. If this cannot be proven then there can be no mathematical proofs.

My interpretation of Wittgenstein and hinge propositions is that hinges are neither true nor false, i.e., hinges have a role similar to the rules of a game. — Sam26

Within the game, according to the rules, it is true that some things are allowed and others not.

One can use “true,” but note it’s not an epistemic use of the concept as justified true belief. — Sam26

It is justified within the system.

Do you mean the question of whether Peter wrote First or Second Peter and your answer that if he did then we have a direct account from someone who lived with Jesus for years, etc? If he did then the rest follows, but we do not know if he did.If we cannot answer the question then we do not know if what is said in those writings is what Jesus or Peter said. We do not know what Jesus said or taught.

Most scholars today conclude that Peter the Apostle was the author of neither of the two epistles that are attributed to him.

(Wikipedia, "Authorship of the Petrine epistles", with note to twelve different scholars).

At best, suggestive, but certainly not reliable evidence of what Jesus and/or Peter or his other disciples believed and taught.

Made is X is a somewhat meaningless term since parts and materials may come from elsewhere. According to Forbes there are no American made vehicles that are completely American made,

I was half joking, but not really surprised.

What is the big issue regarding Chinese products? — javi2541997

It is largely a matter of politics. Both parties claim unfair trade practices. This is questionable because US companies including auto manufactures are subsidized.

At a rally in March Trump threatened that there would be a bloodbath if he was not elected because he would impose a 100% tariff. In a fact sheet from the White House in May Biden announced that he was imposing a 100% tariff on electric vehicles in addition to other tariffs.

Made in China. Imported to the US.

There is a difference between being unable to distinguish between what he actually said and what has been attributed to him and the claim that a message has or has not been transmitted faithfully.

I would not be surprised if this escalates. Eating people is next.

I too think it matters, but the question is how much it matters to the voters. Certainly it will to may, but will it be enough in those states that matter most? I would like to think so, but a lot of people have and will overlook everything else if they believe they will benefit with Trump and/or be hurt by Harris. How they might calculate that, if they do calculate it, or go with what their gut tells them, remains a mystery.

Up until last night I worried about coyotes eating my dog. Now it seems I have worry about illegal immigrants eating my dog. Or is it all immigrants? Or just those from "shithole countries"?

These are not statements that apply to angles or even Zeus. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When was John written? Does it reflect the beliefs found in the synoptic gospels? We cannot say what Jesus would have said, but can this be squared with Jesus recitation of the Shema and calling it the first of our commandments? (Mark 12:29)

1 Timothy 3:16) — Count Timothy von Icarus

The authorship is in dispute. I think the emphasis on false doctrines and trustworthy saying is significant . It seems likely that whenever it was written there were different teachings vying for authenticity. Is the fact this this one made the canonical cut and others did not indicative of more than the preferences of the collectors?

What does it mean to manifest? This too is open to dispute. To manifest is to show, appear, or be seen. This is not the same as for God to be in the flesh.

It is readily apparent that the "Son" is not one son among many in John. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. John appropriates the passage from Psalms for for own ends. It is readily apparent that in Psalms there is not just one son. This raises the question of authority. Is Psalms authoritative or John? It seems far more likely that Jesus would come down on the side of Psalms.

There is a distinction between the sheep and the Good Shepherd — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is also the distinction between father and son in this passage.

The Septuagint was motivated by the fact that they increasingly only wrote and read Greek. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true, but:

There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic.

(Language of Jesus)

and provides references. In addition to the question of language there is the question of culture. An audience not familiar with Jewish Law and teachings may not hear a term such as 'son' in the way it is used in the Hebrew Bible even if they are reading in Greek translation.

,,, that Paul was a gentle, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I did not say that Paul was a gentile, but that he spoke to a gentile audience. Paul himself, as you probably know, confirms this.

Nor is it in any sense definitive that none of the epistles attributed to Jesus disciples were written by them. I have no idea where you are getting this certitude. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My certitude is not so great that it will hold in the face of evidence to the contrary. Do you have such evidence? Which Gospel or which part of the Gospel? Do you reject the source theory such as Q source?

Well no, this is also overreaching. You keep using the lack of definitive evidence as an excuse to make definitive claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If we cannot distinguish between what Jesus actually said and what is attributed to him that is because of the stories and claims that stands between them. Or do you have a way of making that distinction?

St. Paul states in unambiguous terms that Christ existed from before the foundations of the cosmos — Count Timothy von Icarus

To be more precise, he is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation. This is hardly unambiguous. As the image of God he is not God. If he is first-born he is not the creator. Through him and in him differs from 1 Corinthians 8:6 where a distinction is made between God from whom all things came and Christ through whom all things came. The NIV translation has "firstborn over all creation". Young's Literal Translation has of all creation. RSV also has of all creation. If he is "of creation" he is created. If he is "over all creation" he is still firstborn, that is, created.

The Gospel of John is markedly different from the synoptic gospels and the writings of Paul. Nowhere in those gospels does Jesus call himself God. In addition, John begins:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

How is it that the word could both be with God and be God?

With "in the beginning" what John says would have sounded familiar to Jesus and his disciples, but in the Genesis account God the creator stands apart from His creation. If John was aware of this difference he presents a brilliant rhetorical piece of writing. The word of God as opposed to the Word shifts the voice of authority.

In John Jesus defends himself by saying:

Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are ‘gods’’
(10:34-36)

He is most likely referring to Psalms 82:6-7:

‘I said, ‘You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.’

John leaves out the second part. If Jesus understood himself to be a son of God in this sense then he is not the one unique Son". And, of course, those who die like mere mortals are mere mortals. Jesus goes on to say, according to John, that he does the work of his father. (10:37-38) Does he do the work of his father or is he his father?

He goes on:

"I and the father are one"
(10:30)

this expression of unity can be taken to mean united together or one and the same. But the latter is at the expense of ignoring the distinctions between him and the father that he repeatedly makes. It is only when his words are heard with foreign ears that his words come to take on a very different meaning. A pagan meaning where the distinction between man and God is obliterated.

As for the "Greek authors," the entire New Testament is in Greek. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. That is the point. They are not Jesus' Jewish disciples. If any of them were Jewish they still spoke to a gentile audience with gentile ears, that is, with gentile and/or pagan beliefs and understanding.

But per his own reckoning, not one single word written by a Disciple has come down to us. But no one wants to buy a book that says "it's impossible to know," — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you agree that it is impossible to know? If so, then it is true that whatever might have been written or told by a disciple has not come down to us because we cannot know that this or that was said or written by one of his disciples.

We do not know what Jesus said or taught. Between Jesus and the Gospels stand many voices. The voice of Paul stands out not only in his own writings but that of other Gospels. But Paul never saw or heard Jesus speak. He relies first and foremost on his own vision. A pious view of this is that he was witnessing the indwelling of spirit. That he was inspired. One problem with this is that the Church Fathers sought to destroy the writings of others with similar experiences. There were other voices that were silenced by the Church Fathers. Voices that if they were heard might give us a very different understanding of Christianity. We might ask: by what authority did they take this upon themselves?

Again, the justification for "I know the key is on the table" cannot be "The key is on the table"; that's just a repetition of the claim. — Banno

I agree. But that is not what I said.

Previously you said:

Wittgenstein takes it as read that knowing requires justification, and hence were there is no proposition to supply the justification, one cannot be properly said to know. — Banno

If you still hold to this claim then it is not enough to say a propositional justification is and must be possible. If you cannot provide propositional justification then why should we assume that there is one? Why isn't showing the key on the table sufficient to conclude that I knew where the key is?

There is a difference between knowing the key is on the desk and being certain that the key is on the desk. — Banno

Again:

8. The difference between the concept of 'knowing' and the concept of 'being certain' isn't of any
great importance at all, except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong.

It will not do here to simple repeat your claim — Banno

Right. The justification is showing that the key is on the table. Showing that the key on the table - pointing to it, picking it up - is not a propositional justification. What would stand as a propositional justification?

If you say "I know the key is on the desk" and ↪frank asks how you know, asks for a justification for your claim, do you think Frank will find "Because I will find it there when I go in" satisfactory? — Banno

No. That would not be an adequate justification. That is my point. The justification would be to go to the desk and find it. To show it to him.

"I left it there and no one has been in the room" is a justification for your claim. And a proposition. — Banno

It is an attempt to justify my knowing that that is where it is. But it will not suffice. It might, after all, not be there. It is not justified by a proposition. Do you have a proposition that will justify it?

But
12. - For "I know" seems to describe a state of affairs which guarantees what is known, guarantees it as a fact. One always forgets the expression "I thought I knew". — Banno

Right. Taking a seat or shutting the door is not a state of mind. If I was wrong and there is not a chair or a door I could not take the chair that is not over there or shut the door that is not there.

Frank is righ; there is a chair over there if it can be moved, sat on, sold at auction and so on. — Banno

You are confirming my point! Where is the propositional justification?

So much for ignoring me. That did not last long. But perhaps someone else can sort out what you are either unwilling or unable to do. Perhaps someone else can sort out the different contexts so that your various claims either hold together or at least do not contradict each other.

In Judaism the messiah is not God.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's right, and therefore claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemy. — Leontiskos

and yet:

Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy. — Leontiskos

Leontiskos is pretending to ignore me, so maybe someone else can sort this out. The claim to divinity might mean that to be divine is not to be God, but when he says:

The Nicene Creed affirms exactly what Lionino says, namely that Jesus is the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. — Leontiskos

and:

If you are saying that Christians never affirmed that Jesus is God, they only believed it, I would say that this is both anachronistic and incorrect. — Leontiskos

one might then think that not all Christains believe that God and Jesus are consubstantial, but nope:

When I talk about what a religious group believes, such as Catholicism or Mormonism, I am talking about what the bona fide representatives and scholars of that group believe (i.e. the leaders and their aids). — Leontiskos

Asked twice be two different members, first:

Why don't you tell me what you think they said constitutes the essence of Christianity? — flannel jesus

He answers by saying what it is not. We might all agree that Christianity is a meatball but this tells us nothing about what it is.

And then:

All right, tell us what a Christian is. — tim wood

he says:

Christians believe in God. They do not worship a "God the Father" who has a human past. — Leontiskos

This is a bit better, but it goes too far in the opposite direction. According to this Jews are Christians.

Where are we? The messiah is not God. But if the messiah is not God then either Jesus is not the Messiah or Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not the Messiah then Jesus is not the anointed one. Jesus would not be Christ.

Can anyone make sense of this contradictory mess?

Yes. But he's just very confident about the chair. There isn't any sort of justification for some metaphysical position. — frank

I agree.

Amy Jill-Levinson — BitconnectCarlos

I take it you mean Amy-Jill Levine. Her scholarship is solid. I read "The Historical Jesus in Context" and some interviews somewhere. Being raised in a Jewish household she was unencumbered by belief in Christian dogma. She did not have to struggle with the belief that Jesus is God.

Once a Jew believes Jesus is divine is he essentially becomes a Christian. — BitconnectCarlos

The term 'divine' is problematic. For example:

Psalm 82:1

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

Whatever these divine beings or gods are, they are distinct from God, the creator of the universe. Distinct from "God the Father".

Talk of gods is a holdover from polytheism. The commandment that you shall have no other god before me is not a claim of monotheism but of henotheism - this god and no others is to be your God. Monotheism is a later development, one that can be found in Isaiah but not earlier. By the time of Jesus there is only one God.

The question then is whether the term 'divine' as it is used by Paul when preaching to the Gentiles and by the Greek speaking authors of the Gospels are claiming that Jesus is God or a god or rather of God. In the case of Paul it might mean that he has renounced his Judaism or, as seems far more likely, since the end is near and he wants to save as many souls as possible, he is no longer concerned with such theological distinctions. In the case of the gentile authors, however, it seems likely that the distinctions between men and gods was not so clear cut.

when I read the Jesus of the Gospels I mostly see him arguing Jewish Scripture, interpretation of the law (halaka), using Jewish methods of argumentation, Jewish parables, referencing Jewish liturgy etc. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree. I think this is why the disciples were against Paul preaching to the Gentiles. His use of the distinction between the Law as written and as it is in one's heart was his own blasphemous invention.

They don't have to be uttered. — frank

Yes, but the point is, they can be expressed.

I think what Witt is saying there is that he demonstrates confidence in the existence of a certain chair by his behavior. Isn't that what you see there? — frank

He does say:

7. My life shows that I know or am certain ...

he goes on to say:

8. The difference between the concept of 'knowing' and the concept of 'being certain' isn't of any
great importance at all, except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong.

The justification is that you found the key on the table. Everything that follows the word "that" is a proposition. — frank

Finding the key on the table is not a proposition. Saying I found the key on the table is.

This sounds like you're misunderstanding what a proposition is. — frank

Perhaps. What is it about a proposition that I misunderstood?