I took a quick look and did not find an etymological connection between the Spanish 'el' and the deity El. Nor did I find a connection between the English 'the' and the Greek 'theos' from which we get such terms as theology. But yes, 'el' translates to 'the'.

It is interesting to see how many gods became one. So effective was the transformation that most do not see it even though traces of it remain and can be seen if one does not read the texts assuming monotheism.

Why all the different names for God in the Hebrew Bible? The following passage from Exodus addresses the problem:

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, aI AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

(Exodus 3:13-15)

The gods of their ancestors are unified into one nameless God of Israel. But the god of Israel is not the only god:

thou shall have no other gods before me

(Exodus 20:3).

I am curious about what structures of the mind can mean when understood more deeply. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Since you say "understood more deeply" I assume you are not inquiring about what the categories are. Is it Kant's claim that they are the universal a priori condition for experience that needs to be examined? Or perhaps whether this is a claim about the mind as it is in itself, that is, noumentally.

Can we say from this that Kant's idealism is a form of naturalism? — Tom Storm

Properly qualified, I think we can. It makes no claims about or relies on anything supernatural. But some will object that it does not tell us how things really are, only how things appear to us.

I am trying to understand an essential difference between Kant's version of idealism and versions of idealism which came before him. — Tom Storm

I don't know if any of what follows has already been covered but Kant's idealism is "transcendental". By transcendental he means the conditions for the possibility of experience. Transcendental idealism is not a claim about the world but about us.

Can Kant’s noumenal world to be understood to potentially have any kind of physical form (waves, for instance) which we cannot apprehend directly? Or is the use of the word ‘physical’ here entirely superfluous? — Tom Storm

Things as they are in themselves are not accessible to us, only things as they are for us. Although they are not accessible to us they are an essential part of experience. In short, they do have physical form.

Is there any simple way of describing how this is might be understood to actually work? — Tom Storm

The manifold of sensations are processed according the structure of the mind, what he calls the "categories of the understanding".

Could dying then be taken as an example of receiving direct feedback from the noumenal world? — Tom Storm

I think he would regard this as a metaphysical question and perhaps he might address it as an antinomy. Reasoning on one side for consciousness continuing in death and on the other that death is the end of consciousness. If death is the end of consciousness then there would be no awareness or feedback. If consciousness survives death then it is either a continuation of our consciousness, in which case no noumental apprehension, or, it is a transformation of consciousness that allow direct apprehension. But this possibility cannot be determined by reason.

I have been reading about the Ugaritic mythology. The influence on the development of Judaism is quite apparent. Here is a quick introduction: "The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan":

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cana/hd_cana.htm#:~:text=Ugaritic%20mythological%20tablets%20describe%20the,goddesses%20of%20the%20Canaanite%20pantheon.&text=The%20god%20El%20was%20viewed,good%2Dnatured%2C%20beneficent%20being.

The high god "El" from Ugaritic culture is one of the names of God in the Hebrew Bible. It is found in the name Israel. Beth El (House of God) is the name of numerous synagogues, cemeteries, and hospitals.

I still do not understand ... — NOS4A2

There is a yawning gap in your understanding. Biden opposed Brown's nomination because of her human rights record as detailed above. Being a black woman is not sufficient grounds for supporting a judicial nominee. To think otherwise is tokenism. To nominate a candidate who is a qualified black woman whose judicial philosophy and record he approves of is not.

It was you who claimed that:

... if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2

Supporting the nomination of just anyone just because she is a woman and black is not what racial justice is about.

On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with more than 180 member organizations, we write to express continued opposition to the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Brown’s record as a California Supreme Court justice demonstrates a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.

(https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-janice-rogers-brown/)

Is this an attempt to be clever or obtuse? Your assumption is that if Biden was concerned about racial justice he would not have opposed a black woman 20 years ago. As if being a black woman should have been sufficient to support her nomination, regardless of her judicial philosophy.

Do I need to spell it out further?

Added: Just in case I do, it is you whose mentality is tokenist.

He actively and explicitly opposed the nomination of a black woman, so if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2

A fine example of a tokenist mentality. As if her judicial philosophy is irrelevant.

This notion of philosophy as entertainment troubles me.

A philosopher fails not when s/he embraces wacky concepts supported by faulty logic, but rather whenever s/he is dull, boring & sleep-inducing. — ucarr

Sleep deprived students with an attention span that can be measured in seconds may find something dull, boring & sleep-inducing that requires alertness, attention, and hard work.

Who are the great philosophers? They're the one's who get read by the general public, generation after generation. — ucarr

The general public has never been equipped to read or understand great philosophy. The demand to be entertained is one of, but certainly not the only reason they are ill-equipped.

I think Christianity borrowed significantly from the pagan mystery cults. — Ciceronianus

A common practice. In large part it is war by other means, the vanquishing of their gods by assimilation. But there is also the tendency to borrow stories and practices that are found to be appealing, and making them our own. The Mithraic iconography of bull, lion head, snake, rock, and radiance can all be found in the religions of far more ancient cultures.

I have not read the thread on time, but I assume it includes such things as the block theory of time, McTaggart's A series and B series, which are discussed not only here but in some philosophy classes.

§94 is about one's picture of the world, not propositions. — Banno

The picture can be expressed in propositional form:

95. The propositions describing this world-picture ...

In the not too distant past that picture expressed as a proposition would have included a statement along the lines that we cannot not step into a machine and fly from one place to another. That picture of the world, where such a thing is not possible is no longer true.

Some do. It might be addressed in a course on metaphysics, or philosophy of science, or in a course on a particular philosopher who talks about it. I would not be surprised to find graduate level courses specifically on time.

The question being (among others), how do you make a god out of a man, who most probably never ever wanted to be seen as a god? — Olivier5

Jesus would have been horrified to learn that he had been deified and the Son made the same ousia as God the Father.

Caesar had proclaimed himself a god. It was not such a stretch for gentile followers of Jesus to make him a god. The "king of the Jews" was not simply a matter of religion, which was often broadly tolerated, but of political power and authority.

There was a recent discovery of some writings circa 381 CE. A discussion that appears to have taken place on something translated as "The Philosophy Forum". Some participants who called themselves Mithraeums were complaining the Christian members of hate fueled attacks on them. There was also accusations of a "war on Mithramas" and allegations that they would forbid saying "merry Mithramas".

Just goes to show how little things change.

What do you think things may have looked like? In what ways do you think things might have been different?

A distinction should be made between the myth (in the modern sense of falsehood) that Jesus ever existed and the myth (in the ancient sense of a story with meaning and significance that goes beyond what is evident in bare facts). I see no reason to question the existence of Jesus but many reasons to question the existence of "the Christ".

One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. It has happened to me. Ehrman has been mentioned a few times. He has been slandered by some who are made uncomfortable by him. The situation is analogous to politics, where you have to be clearly with us or against us. I have been criticised for being and atheist and criticised for being a theist. It seems as though a decision is made as to which side you are on and what you say is the evaluated in that light.

It is unfortunate that a discussion of the historical sources and influences that shaped the writings of the Bible and its various interpretations is regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these matters. While there is disagreement, which sometimes gets heated, many of the scholars, on all sides of an issue, consider themselves religious. That they agree with those who consider themselves agnostic or atheist should give us pause.

Very good. Among other things, this proves that philosophy can indeed be a profession! :grin: (There are some doubts about that in this thread; I can't remember from whom.) — Alkis Piskas

I think you mistook a remark by me to mean that. My point was that we should not consider the profession as a necessary condition for being a philosopher. The profession is a relatively recent invention.

Why do you 1) refer to the past and 2) consider that "unfortunate"? — Alkis Piskas

What is unfortunate is that the phrase has become hackneyed. We now find it just about everywhere. All kinds of ordinary things are proclaimed to be transformative. It is part of the hyperbolization of language. Ordinary things are now "awesome", "amazing", "incredible". It's linguistic inflation.

Anyway, my interest on the subject is consumed at this point! — Alkis Piskas

My response will be addressed to anyone who might be interested:

I'm surprised that you are using present time ... I couldn't think that sophists have survived to this day! — Alkis Piskas

I use the present tense for two reasons. One, I do not regard the issues raised as simply of historical importance. If we are to understand Socratic philosophy, which I regard as no less relevant today than it was then, we need to consider the question of the relationship between the philosopher and the sophist. Second, although we may not typically use the term 'sophist', it is evident that those who "make the weaker argument stronger" are still around.

Socrates criticized the sophists for requiring pay for their services. Professional philosophers do the same. Are the really professional sophists then? Is pay what distinguishes the philosopher and the sophist, or is the no clear distinction? Plato raises the question, but the answer he provides is not so clear cut.

Regarding philosophy always, I always --since school-- connected "sophists" to pre-Socratic philosophers, represented mainly by Protagoras. — Alkis Piskas

Plato identifies Protagoras as a sophist, but we should not take this to mean that he simply rejected his teaching. Protagoras' influence on Plato was considerable.

Yes, even change it, or ignore it, as I think they did. — Ciceronianus

There is a fundamental tension in religion. On the one hand, there is the belief in immutability, and on the other, the historical evidence of continued change.

Christianity prior to the hegemony of the Church Fathers was without official doctrines. It was an "inspired" (the indwelling of spirit) religion. But even the attempt to establish the inalterable truth met with change from the very beginning. Rather than "the rock" on which the Church was built, it has been shifting sand.

Do you think he struggles with his own sanity? — universeness

I don't know. I have not read anything by or about him in a long time. I usually do not watch videos, although sometimes I do put them on 2x speed and read the closed captions along with the audio. Perhaps it is not his sanity that he struggles with but his need to remain in the public eye.

Added:

Do you think there is any sense/value in the title 'Scientific Philosopher?' — universeness

I do see some value in it.

The self-deprecation you employ, considering your academic background suggests a humorous and modest persona, — universeness

I see I have you fooled! The work of a foolosopher.

I could chat for a long time on Judaism and its connection with Canaanite gods like El, Asherah, BAAL etc and Christianity.
How about the Judaic story of Lilith and her relationship with the garden of Eden 'snake' and its iconographic relationship with the 'flying snake' or dragon and Liliths' spat with Adam, way before Eve and her EVil and dEVil came on the scene.
All sorts of fascinating parallels in stories like the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the Roman Mithratic cults, The classical pantheon etc. — universeness

I am reading "God: An Anatomy"
https://www.amazon.com/God-Anatomy-Francesca-Stavrakopoulou-ebook/dp/B08XB6JHQT/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=CjwKCAiA6Y2QBhAtEiwAGHybPZIObGlgCxmcjvsgjv3KuzVTFx7qS3i28pvBXlw_xwM3s9SLoR4BXRoCWi8QAvD_BwE&hvadid=526980182549&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9011457&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=16822304529601009289&hvtargid=kwd-1232133270691&hydadcr=7500_9612629&keywords=god+an+anatomy&qid=1644422251&sr=8-1

It is in line with what you say. Of course not everyone agrees with her, but even her critics cannot dismiss her scholarship.

And yet there is no end to those who 'f' the ineffable

I would be interested in your opinion of Jordan Peterson? — universeness

If you want an example of a contemporary sophist Peterson comes to mind first. At some point he began to garner attention and has milked it for all its worth.

Also, do you think neuroscientists such as Sam Harris can bridge any gap between Science and philosophy, can anyone be called a 'Scientific Philosopher?' — universeness

I would look to someone like Patricia Churchland to do that with regard to neuroscience, and Sean Carroll for physics. They are not the only ones, but they do write for the general public.

I think Harris has become a willing victim of his own success, giving his pronouncements on all kinds of things simply because he has an audience.

You may be the first to have commented on my forum name.

Full disclosure: I am a philosopher by profession. I have a PhD in philosophy and many years of teaching before I retired.

I have always been reluctant to call myself a philosopher. I think of myself, my colleagues, and my teachers as students of philosophy. I prefer to reserve the term for those rare individuals who have on the historical scale fundamentally shaped our way of thinking.

Thoreau observed that professors of philosophy go to work, come home, and live lives indistinguishable from their neighbors. He saw philosophy as a way of life, the art of living. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living.

I used to say that philosophy was a transformative practice, but unfortunately that has become hackneyed.

Are you claiming that we can understand a hinge proposition better by looking at Kuhn's paradigms? It seems to me that compounds the problem of interpreting one thinker by introducing the problem of interpreting another.

Reality is the one thing nobody can escape. — Garrett Travers

I regard the faith in a transcendent reality to be an escape from reality. I suspect people die every day clutching on to their beliefs.

But that is a claim within a system. It is the claim
that can be true or false, not the system. — Joshs

Do you take the claim to be a hinge proposition?

If we consider the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric universe it seems to me that the geocentric system was false.

I take this to be an invitation to look more closely at Hobbes in light of the ancients, and the ancients in light of Hobbes.

They will learn. — Garrett Travers

I do not share your confidence.

I was responding to your claim that the philosopher is someone who practices it as a profession. The professionalization of the field is something worth thinking about. There are some, Thoreau comes to mind, who are quite critical of the profession of philosophy.

I really enjoy the way you process these concepts. I haven't been impressed all that much here on the philosophy forum, you and Paine seem to be consistently erudite in your assessments. Great job. I've met many people, including on this website, who did not understand this aspect of the dialogues. — Garrett Travers

Thank you. Some time back I did extended commentaries on some of the dialogues. I take inquiry to be central to the pursuit of philosophy. There are some here who think philosophy is a matter of revealed truth. They were hostile to anything that threatens what they regard as the gospel of Platonism.

As I understand it, hinge propositions are not immutable:

But is there then no objective truth? Isn't it true, or false, that someone has been on the
moon?" If we are thinking within our system, then it is certain that no one has ever been on the
moon. Not merely is nothing of the sort ever seriously reported to us by reasonable people, but our whole system of physics forbids us to believe it.

(OC 108)

Within "our system" at that time, it was not doubted that no one has ever been on the moon. Today we doubt that proposition. We regard it as false.

the sophists were those who taught the young men how to be wise but they charged for their services. — universeness

Generally, what the sophists taught was how to win arguments, how to persuade others to do what is to your advantage. For some this is what it means to be wise. Socrates attempted to persuade them otherwise.

A good point about the long-game, but are we sure about the selfless benefactor? — Garrett Travers

There is a difference between the way the philosopher was portrayed and what was thinly veiled. The philosopher, despite the portrayal was not a selfless benefactor. It was a guide taken on to mask the danger philosophy posed to conservative society.

Virtue means excellence. In its highest form, the realization of the best humans are capable of. But this is something that can only be attained by a few. A "virtuous society" is problematic to say the least.

But, isn't it also mentioned among the comrades that the philosopher is the only one who can even be trusted to rule? Which thereby creates his obligation. What do you think on that? — Garrett Travers

The argument in the Republic, if I remember it correctly, is that their obligation to the city is based on their being raised and educated by the city, that the city makes possible their way of life. It does not take much to see how weak this argument is.

The sophists were a diverse group. The term came to have a negative connotation but it was not always used that way. On the other hand, the term 'philosopher' was sometimes used in a derogatory sense. They were no always held in high regard. In Aristophanes' Clouds Socrates is depicted as a sophist. When Plato criticizes the sophist I take the difference to be a matter of intention. The sophist's intention is to persuade, to "make the weaker argument stronger", without regard to the truth.

Socrates not charging money speaks to the issue of benefit. He did not teach in order to benefit himself, and did not refuse to teach those who could not pay. He also did not refuse to take money from his followers.

Isn’t the hinge proposition the condition of possibility for determinations of truth and falsity? — Joshs

If they are it is not in the Kantian transcendental sense.

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).