I have read two/three of those books — AmadeusD

You haven't. There would be evidence in your thoughts and there is none. I really did read all of your long post and found nothing, absolutely nothing of a working intellect. A lot of insults but nothing even remotely about anything these philosophers had to say.

Sorry my pretentious friend, but you are just a troll who doesn't know what he is talking about.

You seem to be ignorant to the entire world of philosophy. And a dick. — AmadeusD

Might I remind you of your juvenile intrusion into this thread?:

Weirdly, this response is the kind of outlandish, comedic set of assumptions that has most trained philosophers rejecting continental philosophy as fart-sniffing.

There is no argument here, no mention of anything remotely related to the OP, not even a single thoughtful construction. Just pure insult (Did you not mention later that I was committing a non sequitur? After this blunder of sequence??) yet your pour you off hand opinions freely into the cup. You got no more than your deserve, you inelegant ass.

I have called your bluff on Tractatus — AmadeusD

You have not made a single reference to anything in any text at all. And I am sorry you wasted your money on a vacuous education in a field that has all but been abandoned. Here is a book I recommend:

"The Fate of Analysis: Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash-Heap of History" by Robert Hanna

This is utter garbage, sorry. There is literally nothing that be done with this line that isn't pulling it apart. — AmadeusD

Look, AmadeusD. I read your post top to bottom, and I understand your position. My fault for misleading you, for sometimes I make the mistake of thinking that everyone, if they would just attend to the ideas and their simplicity, should understand the basic thinking here. But this is wrong. You cannot walk through a door that you don't even know exists, and phenomenology is just this kind of door for you. All of this will forever seem nonsense to you...unless, that is, you read Being and Time, The Critique of Pure Reason, Derrida's Margins. and on and on.

So the best of luck to you.

Rather, religion is the foundational determinacy of our existence, and in this, ethics is prescribed. — praxis

Yes, religion as a determination is a body of what I lately like to call a bundle of churchy fetishes. A fetish is, after all, something that has a derivative existence, drawing on something more basic and singular. Like sex. Walk into a church and the feel of quiet stillness, the subtle and somber twilight of stained glass, then the rituals, the symbols and the group prayer, and so on. This is a mirror image of a mind in reverence, of meditative affirmation. And yes, the whole point is to lay out a determinacy, it could be said. Something that fills the metaphysical emptiness with positive assertions.

But otoh, religion as a reduced phenomenon is the confrontation we have with a world that is utterly transcendental, and its value-in-the-world puts to inquiry an extraordinary question. One has to understand this to understand the nature of religion just as one has to understand Wittgenstein did VERY well. What drove him to face death during the war? Or nearly memorize Tolstoy little bible book? The Tractatus is really about just this impossible dimension of our existence, the what cannot be said but only shown. He was wrong about this in the Tractatus, closer to being right in the Investigations, which made language into something fluid and open; but right about the importance of it. It is the importance of what it means for something to be important at all. This is the issue: how is it possible for anything at all to be important? The determinative body of a religious icons and affects, etc., begs this question as inquiry whittles down to basic assumptions. It finds indeterminacy where consummation and redemption should be. This, of course, is arguable.

Please explain this line to me like I am a first year phenomenology student. — AmadeusD

1. Make a qualified Cartesian move. One is not affirming the cogito as the ground for all possible affirmations. In fact, Descartes made a fundamentally bad move: there is no thinking unless there is thinking about something. So the indubitability of the cogito extends to the world of objects.

2. Think of the world as an event. Is perception a mirror of the world? One has to look very hard at this idea. When you see something, and do the basic science of what this is about, it is not even remotely possible that this in my head (and this is a physicalist's science, the kind of thing we are educated to understand) reaches out to apprehend that tree out there. I make this point frequently, simply because whenever I make it, I am greeted with doubt and disdain, something I find so absurd that it defies credulity. Epistemology is impossible with this physicalist model, for as Quine and the naturalists hold, this model's bottom line is causality, and there is nothing epistemic about causality.

4. This here has to be read and pondered, not simply read. When we observe the world and its objects, whether they be things, emotions, ideas, and so forth, that observation is part of the constitution of what is witnessed. This is a very old idea. It sounds like idealism, and it is, in part, and by this admission I simply reaffirm that perception is not a mirror image of the world. Show me the mirror. In fact, I simply cannot even imagine anything more opaque than a brain. But on the other hand, an honest account of what stands before me reveals the ordinary perceptual conditions of things being outside of myself, apart from me, at a distance over there, is not something that can be dismissed, Why? Because the whole point is to understand the world, and the the world is simply given to us with these divisions and differences.

So all this critical thought that undermines a physicalist's epistemology certainly does not violate the field of perception as it is given to us. It simply tells us that we need to think very differently about our selves as perceiving agents in a world. This opens the door to an entirely different approach to explaining what things are, ontology, and how we know them, epistemology, for we now have to look to the relation between ourselves and the world to understand the "what it is" that is there. This is the phenomenological approach. E.g, you see a brain and witness a patient undergoing a fully conscious surgical procedure so the scalpel does not remove important tissue. The probe touches a


5. So now in answer to your question: When inquiry turns towards the self that "partly" constructs the event of engaging with the world and generates a knowledge relation, things turn up that were entirely unseen. This is Heidegger's analysis of dasein, but beyond, into the paradox that occurs when language turns to an analysis of itself. If my faculties, call them, actually constitute the relation of a knowledge event, then what is the most visible feature if this? Language. I look at my cat, and all sorts of knowledge claims are implicit, "claims" not explicit in the looking, but are there, stabilizing the event, creating a general familiarity, and this stabilizing feature is time, and time's phenomenological analysis reveals issues about the present in the past-future dynamic of theevent of perceiving.

Long story short, the present SHOULD NOT exist, is one way to put this. Every time I look up and take on the world in this way or that, I am informed by "the potentiality of possiblities" that my enculturated self carries with it into various environments, as when I walk into someone's kitchen and already know everything about knives, sinks, cabinets, etc. THIS is what constitutes the knowing of the world, this potentiality of possibilities that spontaneously rises to identify the world! So the present is altogether lost, that is, the metaphysical present is lost, the intimation from the world as to what it is outside of the temporality that claims a thing in the simplest apprehension. This presence of the world is the foundation of our existence and that of all things, and yet the perceiving of this presence is impossible. One would have to literally stand outside of experience an announce what is witnessed! Yet there it is, in full color and intensity, and this goes to ethics and value. See Wittgenstein's Tractatus for the inspired insight that ethics and aesthetics is transcendental. Why does he say this? Because they reveal something in the events of the events of our lives that is outside of the knowledge grid of our existence. IT is there, the value-in-the-world, in the good and bad experiences we have, yet the good and bad has no real appearance as other thing do. Moore called the good a non natural property.

This is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence. It begins with the epistemic problem, and moves to ontology of all things (keeping in mind that ontology is now very much about the agency that knows), especially the good and the bad of ethics, and discovers that impossible presence of the world (the world is mystical, says Witt), and finds an abiding openness in the examination the phenomenal events.

Yes. The REAL ground is living bodies feel real pain. At that real level however, no one thinks of sticking a hand in boiling water because at that level no one thinks. Thinking and the moral prohibitions emerge out of these organic feelings, are effected by them; but there is no (ontological? metaphysical?) relationship. Pain feeling a certain way for triggering certain behavior is nothing like Morality. The trace relationship between REAL pain and any and all moral prohibitions is long long gone; so long gone that there is an unbridgeable gap between the REAL "reason" (I.e. REAL pain) and all of the multitudes of constructed ones. — ENOAH

Trace relationship? But there "is" no trace relationship, for such things are under erasure. What deconstruction does is deliver the purity of the world out of the grip of assumptions, at least, this is what it CAN do, for the reduction itself, the movement toward transcendence, is not simply an apophatic exercise, any more than meditation is this. Deconstruction and religion are method and manifestation, respectively. The former parallels The East's neti neti, which is simply a liberation from interpretative norms that generally define the world for a person. The latter is a change in the way the world is perceived in a default perceptual disposition. In other words, if one in earnest questions the world at the basic level of assumptions, those assumptions fall away simply by the weight of their own contingency. We live in a world of contingencies, or accidents, as the old language has it. Language is mostly this, save for the transcendental function of language: its openness. The question, as I frequently say, is the piety of thought (borrowed from Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art). Look away from arguments and behold the world, and then proceed with the reductive, apophatic method of "discovery" (I think you said you've read Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. In this book, Rorty states up front that truth is made, not discovered. He had zero interest in the "where it takes one" of deconstructive thinking. I am sure this is because for Rorty, there is no where to be taken. See the footnote on p 123 where he argues with Caputo about the latter's claim about "the silence from which all language springs." This really is close to the Positivist Otto Neurath's response to Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" which was to say, yes, one must be silent, but not about anything! This silence is where Derrida takes us. You may find yourself on Rorty's side of this coin, but then, this would take a long interpretative excursion into Derrida that cannot be done here. All I can say is this: I have as a default predisposition toward the world, a "spiritual" bent, however, any standard religious term like "spiritual" is to be defined in the openness of the foundational indeterminacy of our existence. When I think spirituality, I first think of Heidegger's massive phenomenological exposition of our existence. But he was no transcendental spiritualist, but was entirely bound up in the finitude of language possibilities. He and I are intuitively antithetical in this matter.

I do note that you insist on the term "organic" as a kind of bottom line to thinking about our existence. I can't really address this, for it is a kind of "scientism" by which I mean it is a borrowing from empirical science's descriptive terms to think philosophically. But science is not philosophy. I argue that phenomenology is the nature of philosophy. Everything else is the "philosophy of" as in the philosophy of animal husbandry or one's philosophy of raising children. Phenomenology is where inquiry goes when the most basic questions are asked, and this is philosophy proper, you could say.

"Feeling pain is nothing like morality"? Well, this has to be unpacked. No one I know hs ever made such a claim that it IS morality as we deal and speak about moral issues. Of course, these are entangled affairs. I only argue that IN these affairs, when reduced to the ethical essence, that is, what makes them ethical, is found something apodictic. This is found "behind" the obvious variability of ethical cases, as a constant and irreducible. Here, we do not toy with terms as analytic philosophers do so well.

We both know its meaning. Can you perhaps rephrase the question? — praxis

Welcome to deconstruction. We both know that heat is measured in molecular agitation, say, and if a then ask, what is agitation? we know this refers to excited movement, then ask what is excited? we think of a lack of calm or perhaps excessive energy, or a relatively diminished or deficit state of animation, depending on what the standard is. Animation? Sounds a lot like agitation. Not exactly, but these are synonymous.

Here you can see, I think, where this issue goes: this conversation could go on forever, though there will be repetitions and restatements that are equivalent to repetition. One will ever discover news ways to say the same thing, and never get to that actuality, whatever it is that is outside language that language is supposed to be about. Most of what we talk about, does it really exist? Does General Motors exist? Does a system of thought exist? Not in the sense that a cup or a saucer exists. These only exist in the agreements between constructed meaning. But then, what about the meaning of the cup and the saucer? It is an empirical presence, a cup, but the constructed meaning that allows us to say General Motors exists is also the kind of thing that makes this "cup" exist. That is, we gather thought around that over there on the table, and can talk about it freely and meaningfully, but the "existence" of this gathered thought is entirely outside the existence of the thing. This is the collision Kierkegaard talks about in his Concept of Anxiety, between Hegel's conceptual realism and the palpable world.

Heat? There is a reason why I tried at the outset to make the epistemological point about our knowledge relation with the world. Also a reason why a temporal analysis in this issue is so important. There is a very strong argument that our mundane world is, at the level of basic assumptions, utterly metaphysical. After all, what really is metaphysics if not what is there, and not fiction, yet will not yield to the understanding's attempt to say what it is.

It is hot in this room, but what does that mean? It can only have meaning if the terms used have meaning, yet each term defers to other terms for this determination. This is one response to the question, how does anything out there get into a knowledge claim? Two answers. One is, it doesn't. The other is, "out there" is a nonsense term in this context. They are both right.

What has this to do with religion? Religion is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence, and in this, ethics is underscored. Once one puts down all of the familiar, rote and facile ways to think about ethics, one sees that all that talk about cups and saucers above applies most profoundly to ethics.

[

Not true, the color red speaks, and says different things depending on the form of life it appears in. In an orchard red says “ripe”. In the temperature of objects red say “hot”. — praxis

What if I asked what hot is?

False. Plenty are colour realists and believe the colour red exists outside the qualia Red. We are having this exact discussion elsewhere.

It would help if you didn't erroneously decide that Continental Philosophy is worthwhile, and Analytical not, if you're going to take up analytical discussions. The Continentals have nothing but disdain for taking thinking seriously. — AmadeusD

State your case.

To try to clarify, I offer the example of the moon. If I ask you where the moon exists you might simply point to it, if I were in a position to see your finger. It's not quite that simple though, right? You require an internal model of the world and the moon in order to point your finger at it. If that model didn't exist then you couldn't locate the moon. You would have no concept of 'moon' to begin with. Without an internal model that included the sky, earth, moon, etc. I don't know what you would see if you were looking towards the moon. The existence of the moon is dependent on our internal model of the world that we continually develop throughout life. Is goodness also dependent on our internal model of the world, even though unlike the moon we can't point to it with our index finger? Pain and pleasure are transmitted to the central nervous system in the same manner as all our senses. Where does pleasure exist? Point to where it feels good. — praxis

First, everything is a concept for us. One could argue that this is true for ducks and goats, but it would be a matter of defining what we mean by concept. I think it is arguable that once a goat spends some time on the farm, anticipatory features of the goat's epistemic relation with its environment would emerge, and while this is not symbolic conceptualizing, it could be a proto-conceptualizing, having an internal time structure that conforms to ours, and concepts are inherently temporal: When I observe the moon, as you say, I come into the perceptual event with a "predelineated" ability to encounter the moon as the moon, and not as a star or a cloud. Memory structures the occasion structures the concept, as does anticipation, for the moment the memory emerges, the perceptual identity of a particular environment fills an unmade future. And this is a stream of consciousness, as James put it. A unity of past and future, only analytically divided.

But what about the present? By many's thinking, such a thing is simply not possible, that is, some magic presence (Derrida's "metaphysics of presence," as if standing before an object, language could reach beyond itself and align with what is not in the "trace" of language) that announces itself, and I think this really is right: there is nothing beyond the text, meaning, to behold and understand is to be IN a contextual environment.

This, I take to be your position, or close to it. It has been argued that qualia, the presence that has an independence from the interpretative function of language, is immune to this temporal critique. Most reject this.

What is being argued here, however, is that there really is one thing that is immune, and this is a qualified immunity: value-in-being. Value qualia, is a good term. Value qualia refers to something that is not in any way or form, language. Tout autre. Think about the qualia of the color, that is, the being-appeared-to redly. We know this is not a language perception, this red-qua-red, and no one will gainsay this. But there is nothing IN the red-qua-red that "speaks," so to speak. It nature remains entirely alien to language, yet the understanding can only think of red conceptually. The concept exhausts the meaning.

Value qualia is very different. Think of Wittgenstein's insistence that value is transcendental. He means that in the scorched flesh, the sublimity of love, etc., meaning actually issues from the non linguistic end of the qualia! What is the difference between a fact, a state of affairs, and a "value fact"? There is a distance between the two that is, well, impossible. Love "speaks" the good. It speaks the bad: the hand in boiling water (just do it and observe, like a good scientist). Value facts (call them) issue forth the voice of reality! Wittgenstein knew this. That horrible pain carries the moral authority of a God.

I'm trying to understand how "the good" is fundamentally different than words and concepts. I can't see how "the good" isn't conceptual in nature. — praxis

Now you have me confused. Put it this way: If we lived in a world in which no one cared about anything, is ethics possible?

I don't think that's correct, the honorific name 'Buddha' means 'one who knows'. And according to Buddhist dogma, what is known is 'the cause of suffering, the end of suffering and the path to the end of suffering'. To be enlightened is to be liberated from the morass of suffering that is entailed in saṃsāric existence. I'm not saying you should believe it, but that is what Buddhists themselves would say. In Platonic terms, there's definitely a 'noetic' element to Nirvāṇa, insight into a truth. — Wayfarer

It is an interesting issue. I think it comes down to agency, not so much the knowledge claim about value. To be in a profound meditative state is not to be talking about being in a profound meditative state. The latter is a social event, the former is not. The same could be said about spraining my ankle or being in love.

So what IS the most salient feature of Buddhism, Hinduism, or simply meditation going very well? This goes to liberation and enlightenment. But enlightenment about what? Is it a discursive process that leads to a conclusion-- inherently discursive just as waking in the morning and "knowing" everythign around me has this discursivity abiding throughout: ask me what anything is at this moment, and you find logical structures and implicit understanding everywhere, linked in logical implications. There is a lamp, and lamps do not belong outside in the garden, and if you saw your lamp outside in the garden you would be very curious. And so on. In other words, just to be IN a language environment, anywhere at all, that is, you have this "noetic" dimension implicitly in play such that simple perception turns on demand into a logically structured knowledge claim. I want to say that when meditation goes very well, say, if you are called to explain your experience, you can, even though this is a difficult thing to talk about. You could reach for metaphors, talk about intensities, familiar experiences, emotions, how one thing yields to another, another vanishes altogether, the process of advancing, and so on. This descriptive conversation is the noetic element you speak of, and I agree with the honorific name, the one who knows.

But this kind of analysis also belongs to anything at all. It is a matter of what the Buddha knows. This is the enlightenment. My way of understanding this lies with seeing my lamp out in the garden where it doesn't belong at all. The lamp is suddenly off the grid of anticipated events, and I have a question (the piety of thought!), but with lamps, I retreat into the familiar: WHO put it there? Am I seeing this right? Perhaps a practical joke? Or someone needed light during the night in the garden? All very mundane, and soon the question will be closed. But enlightenment, this is very different, isn't it? One stands in an openness of a termination of anticipated possibilities, and all the question remains OPEN. One is now no longer possessed by rote and practiced affairs that run their course, and in this language, the machine that generates ready to hand responses to questions, is explicitly dismissed. I call meditation the open question that stays open.

So what does the Buddha know? It is a non standard knowledge claim. Consider: I sit and stare at this lamp, but deliver the event from interpretative imposition altogether, I mean, I shut up and shut down anything that would claim it. THIS, I want to emphasize, is a most extraordinary experience, but I can't really speak for others. For me, the lamp undergoes an uncanny transformation as the particularity recedes, but it is not the universal (Platonic) that is discovered with some enhanced clarity, for this universal was, it can be argued, exactly the problem: Mundane affairs are "about" universals, and their inherent knowledge claims never really "touch" the palpable existence before one. So the universal and the particular race through our understanding joined at the hip, so to speak, in simple perceptual encounters, and this is what "taking the world "as" is about (though there is a lot more to say on this). Anyway, it is not the universal that is discovered in this uncanny transformation, nor is it the "real" object before me. Neither of these. It is, to borrow from some very interesting French post modern philosophers, the radical other, the "tout autre": unspeakable "presence" of the givenness of the world. Buddhists and Hindus strive to live in this "place," putting aside all of the historical and analytical metaphysics, something I very much try to do. The only authority lies with the sublime apprehension itself. Thought and its language is pragmatic as it is an inherent part of the method of discovery, AND, and this goes to my original concern, thought and language constitute a dimension of agency that cannot be brushed aside. The lamp, the object before me, loses its identity as it yields to the openness of meditation (the question. Or am I wrong to talk like this? Interesting, this idea of the openness of the question and the openness of meditation are the same), and the meditator also loses her identity as all implicit knowledge claims fade, yet what of the historical self, the person one is. What is it that displaces this personal history that is behind the "I" of my meditative perceptual self?

Long story short, I think this is where liberation finds its meaning. One always already is the Buddha, it is said. But this is NOT a noetic acknowledgement. It is tout autre.

I agree it seems a preposterous notion, but I believe there's a sense in all the cosmic religions that existence is inherently imperfect and bound to entail suffering. In Christianity, that is represented in the Fall and the original sin. In Buddhism, it is represented by beginningless ignorance in which living beings are ensnared. The first link in the chain of dependent origination in Buddhism is ignorance. Liberation from ignorance is also liberation from being reborn due to karma (although in Mahāyāna doctrine, enlightened beings may be voluntarily born out of compassion.)

Alongside the 'doctrine of evil as privation' there's also the kind of theodicy explained by John Hick in his Evil and the God of Love. Hick argues that suffering plays a crucial role in the development of moral and spiritual virtues. According to Hick, humans are not created as perfect beings but rather as morally immature creatures with the potential to grow into morally and spiritually mature individuals. Suffering and challenges are necessary conditions for this growth, as they provide opportunities for individuals to develop virtues such as courage, compassion, and patience. Hick also says that for love and goodness to be genuine, they must be freely chosen. Suffering is a consequence of the freedom that God grants humans. This freedom allows for the possibility of both good and evil actions. Without the possibility of suffering, free will would be meaningless, and humans would be automatons, incapable of genuine love and moral choice.

The reason this all seems alien to modern culture, is that today's culture tends to normalise the human condition, by putting the individual self at the fulcrum. But then, that's the essence of a secular age, the only redresses being political, social and technological. — Wayfarer

I want to agree, and I do, but only in a qualified way because I am predisposed to doubt grand ideas that tell me what is really going on, for these exceed to limits of defensible thinking. But yes, it is not an unreasonable speculation to say, as Dewey put it, without problems to solve, we would never grow. The question would never occur. Why this is the case is impossible to say, like asking why about screaming children in burning cars.

I see you have chosen to do nothing but slide further into ad hominem(and this time, it's outright racist). I am, again, not surprised. Please don't be surprised when you're treated the way you behave. — AmadeusD

Just say something interesting, AmadeusD.

self-involved, preening narratives
— AmadeusD
- this is the form of the majority of Continental Philosophy, on my view - again, a direct response to the obvious nonsense you've written;
5. This is my 'social media'. I would avoid ridiculous ad hominems like this, particularly when you are dead wrong;
6. I am neither American, nor live in America.

Please avoid devolving into comments about me rather than my comments. I have stuck to commentary on your comments. I'll do so again: — AmadeusD

Hard to respond nicely. The bottom line is this: you really don't demonstrate any knowledge of the issues. Yet you have opinions. This is a very bad situation.

No offense intended to Americans, really. Just pretentious people and the hobgoblins of their little minds...... unless, that is, you actually have something to say about metaethics.

Where? — praxis

Not sure I understand the question. A place? How about the delight my cat felt as it tortured its mouse last night?

Are you claiming that “the good” exists in “the world” separate from minds (words and concepts)? — praxis

Yes.

This is a non sequitur for the ages. I did warn about this - continental philosophy is rhetoric only. That's why teenage boys are still finding Satre interesting. We all go through a death on the way adulthood - pretending these self-involved, preening narratives are somehow extrapolable is a serious mistake, and probably a good portion of why this type of 'philosophy' is both derided readily, and defending vehemently. But this is like defending Christianity because it pulled you thruogh your divorce. Arbitrary. — AmadeusD

Please take notice, AmadeusD, That after reading your post, twice, I find nothing at all that is responsive to the idea you quote. Do read this thing you wrote, and ask: Did you address, or even mention, the claim made in the quote to target for criticism? What does Sartre have to do with it? Self involved, preening narratives?? These are just words thrown.

You do sound like someone who posts on social media a lot. Ah America, the vast land of the mostly unread!

There’s a host of concepts involved in “the moral prohibition against doing this [putting someone’s hand in a pot of boiling water] to others” that is far removed from the experience of that pain. I must not be following rightly. — praxis

But try understand that ALL of this "host of concepts" presuppose something that is not a concept at all. This is a reference to existence, not a category of existence. Were nothing at all to happen when one immersed a hand into boiling water, then the entire ethical conceptual possibility would simply evaporate. The entire explanatory analytic of "the good" would simply have no meaning at all unless the move is made to this that is outside the explanation.

The concepts in play in a discussion of the concept good withdraw entirely from this existential dimension, simply because there is nothing to say (as Wittgenstein was keen to point out) here. To speak at all one is referred to the many ways the good can be intelligently, if superficially, analyzed as a concept of ambiguous meanings and contexts. I refer you to RM Hare's discussion of functional words where he notes how a term like good finds it meaning to refer to very different things, like good knives or good tennis players. One could say good refers to efficiency, but then efficiency refers us back to the efficient for what? question, and a vast relativism steps in throwing the whole matter regarding the good into usage, or Wittgenstein's "family resemblances". There are many more ways to talk about this, but they all seek to talk, and this is the real issue. Philosophy gets bored with simplicity, especially the entire edifice of anglo american philosophy which is founded on boredom. Which is why Moore''s non natural property has been so disparaged: it is like saying the good is like the color yellow: a mere observable property, not non naturally observable.

The idea defended in the OP is both MOST boring and MOST fascinating. For an tried and true intellectual, hell bent on filling space with dialectic, it's the former. But if one is interested in the world and not just the way words work, then the latter. The former is an attempt to turn philosophy into a meaning game. This is what you get when you hand matters over to a logician (like Russell). Completely vacuous. But fun to puzzle about.

'the good that has no opposite'. It is distinguished from the our conventional sense of what is good, which is defined in opposition to, and so in association with, the bad. — Wayfarer

Accomplished Buddhists report that the sense of well being we have in the familiar world is actually, even at its best, spoiled by concerns and anxieties unseen (Freud said the same thing but that is another story). So this conventional sense is conceived out of a false limitation placed on what the good can be since our existence is corrupted by an anxiety that runs through everything. Consider that nirvana is not really a knowledge claim (enlightenment), but a value claim (liberation). Philosophers in the west are stuck on epistemic truth, but our existence is about "value truth,' that is at the heart of knowing. A discovery that can certainly be propositionally expressed, but this is incidental, and this is a difficult claim because agency is so bound to language. Truth as propositional soundness begs the question, what is the world that aligns with propositions? Things never go anywhere like this. Truth as revelation? Well, what is revealed? This brings inquiry back to the starting place.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because "something" is driven toward an absolute aesthetic affirmation.

The 'doctrine of evil' that flows from that is 'evil as privation of the Good', which is associated with Augustine, but similes of which can be found in Advaita. This is that evil has no real existence, it is real in the sense that shadows and holes are real, as an absence or lack of knowing the true good. Redemption consists in coming to awareness of the true good, which is concealed or obscured by ignorance (in Advaita) or the original sin (in Augustine.) — Wayfarer

The only way I can confirm such an idea evil is a privation would be to ignore the direct evidence of suffering. But is this reasonable? I do think it right that ordinary lived life is a privation of certain possibilities, among which are positively extraordinary and important in ways impossible to assimilate into familiar assumptions. In a sublime affirmation, there is an understanding of what is real that is outside of the familiar altogether, and this could be the justification for an ontological claim of evil having no real existence. I mean, if Thich quang dong (the Vietnamese Buddhist monk who self immolated) was simply not available for the pain his body was reporting, and he was "elsewhere" and this elsewhere was entirely without painful possibilities, I don't see any room for denying this. But to move from this to a thesis that pain doesn't exist would have to be inclusive of the existence of pain prior to "not being available" and this seems patently false.

Like putting aside the concepts of good and bad, right? — praxis

On order to take metaethics seriously, one has to look, not to the concept, the understanding's counterpart to the living actuality, but to just this actuality. The proof for this lies in the pudding: putting one's hand of a pot of boiling water, for example: NOW you know the REAL ground for the moral prohibition against doing this to others.

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

I think you have it. 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. Metaethics, in the continental sense (not the analytic vacuity) refers to "the good" and "the bad" and we all know how these are played out in the metaphysical Christian fiction, but this reduces to, simply, the good and the bad as absolutes. Now, what is an absolute? If something is apodictic, it is an absolute, is the claim. Can't even imagine, say, an object moving itself, as its own cause. This is not logically possible. One can argue about the apodicticity of logic, and I am willing to do so if you like, but for now the idea here hinges on this: in logic we have apodictic truth (again, Derrida aside. But then, you will find Derrida's position VERY interesting here, though). If this apodicticity were a feature of ethics, then ethics would be just like God's decree. After all, what is the basis for the absolute authority of God? In popular religion, it is pure dogmatics, but what does the dogmatic position say? It says one cannot even imagine a greater authority that could gainsay God. The greatest possible being is Anselm's idea. I.e., apodicticity. Cannot be gainsaid on pain of a contradiction. I am arguing that the good and the bad cannot be gainsaid, just like logic.

So, your question about redemption: What is redeemed? Suffering. What is the necessity of the redemption of suffering that makes it apriorii necessary, like logic? The apodicticity of "the bad". In logic we have the conditional form, the affirmation, the negation, the disjunction and so on. There are rules to their concatenation, expressed in symbolic logic. In ethics there are two "rules" which have to do with the good and the bad. There is here NO toleration for evil. One has to observe this "logic of ethics" which is primordial just as one observes the logic of modus ponens. The "form" of ethics, if you will, is the good and the bad. Just as a contradiction in logic formally upends an argument (the reductio ad absurdum), so in the "argument" of our ethical lives is upended by evil.

Which is a way to say, the evil must be redeemed by necessity.

Keep in mind here the simplicity of this. Logic itself is simple in its basic rules (Kant's categories). But for ethics, we are NOT directed toward an argument and logical form. We are directed toward the world, existence, the real. This has always been the jurisdiction of God: an absolute grounding of our ethics. But God, divested of the usual anthropomorphic features and all the absurd narratives, reduced to its essence, remains, as does the authority it possesses.

Neither good nor bad, or both good and bad. I don't think it matters which way it's conceptually considered. — praxis

It is about putting conceptual considerations aside. This is the point. Suffering as such is not a concept.

Truth is in present being; not in the I's comings and goings — ENOAH

Just to add: This turn from the "comings and goings" to "present being" is not a turn away from language. One has to incorporate language into the revelation of presence to be on meaningful ground. This turn is away from prereflective engagement, prior to the question of being that throws everything off course. The matter of ontology only rises up if the ontology of everyday affairs is thrown into question. The question abides throughout, for the question is the very openness you stand in as you stand before "presence". Apophatic philosophy is the philosophy of negation, negating, that is, the autonomy or free flow of conscious matters, and stopping them quite vigorously, if you are a serious Buddhist. But that "space" that opens up to the Buddhist is the same space of the epoche's deconstructive movement toward the impossible affirmation, that is, your "presence"; as John Caputo puts it, "The voice of “negative theology”—one of them, for it has several—is deeply, resoundingly affirmative. Oui, oui."

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

Abstractor? But consider that it is just the opposite in the case above: It is not the abstraction of thought and the imposition of an interpretative identity called an ego or a transcendental ego. The basis of the idea presented here is not the abstract idea of a self. When you observe a value event (the very substance of ethical concern) you observe something altogether "tout autre" from what language can do (keeping in mind that all along as I defend the notion that there is nothing abstract about language, I have been trying make clear that when we turn to something "tout autre" like this, we are committed to a language setting that makes this possible. I have been saying that when we encounter anything, it is affirmed in language, notwithstanding it being entirely OTHER than language. This is the paradox of deconstruction.

These conversations about deconstruction and theology are very weird, but it is Derrida that takes the argument to this very place I have been trying to hammer out: me and my language standing before a world that is not language, telling me this is a tree and that is a computer, but entirely mute when these are delivered from their explicit knowledge claim (recall Kierkegaard's riposte to Hegel's rationalism: Hegel has simply forgotten that we exist!. This is essentially what his infamous absurdity turns on). I use the term tout autre because Derrida does, and this wholly other is, I am confident, what you have in mind, here and there, in your thinking.

Language is NOT abstract. Rather, abstraction is conceived IN language. And it depends on what one means by the term. Often it is meant to refer to something that is just an idea, and ideas are not like furniture or fence posts. Here, it is intended that ideas do not exist. You insist that the self argued about here is like this, a fiction conceived in nonreal ideas, and there is a lot about this I agree with (you might say I "half" agree with this) 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.

Just to repeat the essential point: I do not argue an abstract transcendental ego. I argue that caring and its value dimension, because it is entirely other than language (perhaps joined at the hip, as Heidegger would have it) affirms the transego's "existence" exactly because it lies outside of language.

But it’s not in the least bit a contingency. Pain is good. Pain, like pleasure, moves life to homeostasis. — praxis

Because it moves life to homeostasis? This is the very meaning of contingency here: Pain is good IN the context of moving life to homeostasis. Remove the contextual contributions to meaning making, then all you have is the pain, the pain as such. pain simplciter, pain that stands as its own presupposition, therefore presupposing nothing for its existence.

Homeostasis? What "good" is this? It encourages survival and reproduction? What good is this? Eventually, after you've put enough of questions like this forward, you find that you are chasing language around. You have to make that fateful move out of language and into actuality. There is the pain now free of contextual presumption. What IS this? This is the question. It does not issue from established thinking about evolution, biochemistry, or anything at all. It is about something that issues from the givenness of the world, "outside" of language (yet, concurrent with language, in us).

Observe how well it cauterizes a wound, proving its value, expressing its goodness. — praxis

This kind of thinking is inevitable. One has to make the move from the way contingencies create multiple contexts of engagement. When we observe suffering in our regular affairs, this is what we witness. The argument is here apriori: Just as we see logic played out in such affairs, and abstract from these to conceive of the purity of symbolic logic (or Kant/Aristotle categories), 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.

Truth is in present being; not in the I's comings and goings — ENOAH

As an old prof used to tell me, you're not going to get that tart to your dessert plate. Hard to argue this because it has this uncanny quality in the meditation on trying to release value from agency. To me, it is a fascinating intuition. I simply cannot even imagine suffering (or bliss or some simple pleasure or irritation. The magnitude of the value experience is the the issue, but the most intense are the most vivid and telling) apart from agency. This is what, to use a term I use repeatedly, picked up from Edith Stein, Husserl and Heidegger, primordial: It is apriori true that suffering cannot exist apart from agency.

As I see it, philosophy's job is criticism at the basic level, so of course one can ask why, find no explanatory basis and then proceed to deny this. I CAN argue this position, I believe, but the strongest justification for this apriori claim lies in this intuitive affirmation. What is not being discussed here is the language construct, the Kantian transcendental unity of apperception as he calls it, that sythesizes the world into general terms. This is the "I" that has its stamp on each thing perceived, and while this is right, I think, and wherever my attention goes, it encounters the me and mine of what is witnessed, the me and mine here, and this is critical, is, entirely unlike Kant, existential, palpable, the very core of meaningful engagement.

If I were to argue the case, it would in the direction of affirming the local nature of an experience and hence the horizon of value events, showing that it is not a disembodied object, floating among the debris of the journeywork of stars. Next, the matter would turn to the quality of what is in play and how it presents entirely novel relationships with the world. And so on.

But just to give emphasis: the argument would inevitably find the inextricable bond between agent and value. Value issues from us; we bring it into the world.

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

Not really about freedom, but about a value ontology, or value-in-being. The nature of religion tells us nothing about freedom and determinism, for the analysis of ethics is not concerned with whether one is free to do what one should; this is a practical matter, one that has accountability written in the law of the land in order to make it appear that responsibility is real. Rather, the question is, what IS ethics in its nature? Yes, this creates an account of the origin of responsibility, obligation, guilt, and so forth, what it is that makes an ethical obligation meaningful, but to say one is obligated to do something begs the more basic question asked here, which deals with an analysis of what makes an ethical issue tick, so to speak. What makes something ethical at all?

Religion essentially is about this metaethical question dealing with the nature of ethics, as it is an expression of the indeterminacy of the good and bad of our affairs that demands closure or completeness. consider the rather mundane but nevertheness, profound question, Why are we born to suffer and die? It is a question that takes inquiry face to face with suffering: what is this? I claim it is an absolute. Wittgenstein knew this. He just refused to talk about it because he thought language and philosophical analysis had no place here. I beg to differ. We can talk about this in rigorous argument.

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

Now, asking if knowledge claims are possible is not a lot of obfuscating weeds. And Mick Jagger is confusing.

A long story short, ask, what does it mean for something to be apodictic? It means the kind of certainty such that it is impossible to be gainsaid. Logic is like this. Value is like this, too: Unlike logic, the "proof" of ethics' apodicticity lies in the actuality, not in the formal and vacuous structure of judgment. Put your hand beneath an open flame and observe. Now, anything can be made the object of a verbal dispute, but the purity of the ethical "bad" that stands as the existential injunction not to bring this into the world constitutes the purity of the injunction itself. In other words, we are not measuring utility nor are we looking at the "good will" driven by duty. Rather, the suffering is a "stand alone" basis for the ethics that would center around such a thing. Like logic and its modus ponens, we are "shown" and are coerced into acceptance that one "should not" bring this into the world, and this will not be gainsaid! This latter is the key, the nature of apodicticity, that it is impossible to deny or argue such a thing. One can argue about the language that gives the injunction conversation and understanding, but the injunction itself is absolute.

Absolutes in dealing with ethics is something reserved for God and faith, generally. But religion is, at its core, just this: the metaethical insistence on the redemption of suffering and the consummation of happiness. Since ethics is at the basic level, apodictically insistent, we are coerced into accepting this redemptive and consummatory feature of our existence. A but like saying, apophatically reduce something like the bible, down to its essence, and you find the only residual religious content here, in the simple analytic of ethics.

I have to say your position is a bit of a mystery. It seems you have a particular disdain for science, or dare I say jealousy of its status in modern life. Yet you are a bit annoyed of Wittgenstein's rather egalitarian attitude that religious needs no rationale foundation from philosophy or science, that it can stand on its own to freely be engaged in what matter a group of human so choose. — Richard B

I am a bit annoyed when lines like this are drawn. Things you cannot say and things you can. The finitude of science and everydayness, and the impossibility of metaphysics. Knowledge and faith.

One has to be aware than when we speak of the world, our categories are an imposition and the best we can do at the outset is describe it such that this imposition is reduced and the world is seen most primordially (a term lifted from Heidegger and Edith Stein to talk about something at the most basic level of identity). Wittgenstein's work draws lines at this level. As I see it, ethics and religion are metaphysically available for exposition. One has to look closely at ethics (and aesthetics) and ask, what are ethical injunctions "made of"? It is a phenomenological reductive look at the anatomy of an ethical problem.

It is not the egalitarianism that bothers me at all. It is that all religion popularly conceived moves one into a world of fantasy and bad metaphysics. It is (speaking here with a healthy respect for Eastern religio-philosophical "methods" and thinking) possible to make real progress in understanding the "meta-world" we actually live in.

Not disdain for science. Disdain for scientific metaphysics: talk about material substance, naturalism or physicalism, as if these were primordial concepts.

I know you know what I mean. Can we skip the tedious part and get to your point? — praxis

Errr, not really. Tell you what, jump to the chase, skipping all the tedious parts, and just tell me how a knowledge claim is possible, then I can make the point. But note one important condition: there is nothing epistemic about causality. I mean, nothing at all. So if you are going to go through a process of external events, saying portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are absorbed by an object while others are reflected and these enter the eye, through the lens then to the optic nerve, and so on, and the like, just forget it. Such an explanation is lost the moment it begins.

This is not to say we do not perceive the world. Not at all. We obviously do. But by all familiar accounts, this is impossible.

One has to think about this; its simplicity is astounding. Keeps me up at night, really.

There may have been other means of detection before probes were sent to Saturn, I don't know. In any case, the cat at your feet and the ice rings of Saturn are both known to the human mind in the form of sensory patterns. These patterns match our internal model of cat and ice rings. How is this relevant? — praxis

Transcendence: that cat or any thing you might imagine is a transcendental object unless you can tell me how it is that that, whatever it is, gets into an actual knowledge claim. Sensory patterns? You mean my cat is sensory patterns?

Ancient minds didn't contrive transcendence, right? — praxis

Transcendence? How about let's start with the epistemic relation I have with this cat at my feet. Tell me how it is I know that there is a cat there in the same way, say, a scientist knows Saturn's rings are made of ice and dust.

I have here a book, Wittgenstein and the Metaphysic of Grace by Terrance W Klein. I'll get back to you if I discover an insight into how his thinking accommodates or yields to or condemns religious practices and belief.

The priesthood is an institution, not the religion? — praxis

A religious institution. What is an institution? Something instituted as an integral part of a culture. A formal way to say, regarding religious tradition, that ancient minds, most sincerely, made it up.

But isn't there something deficient about Wittgenstein's apodictic religion? After all, he was claimed as the emblem of the vociferously anti-religious Vienna Circle, and even if they were wrong in so doing, they were a highly intelligent group of individualis who found support for their views in his texts. On this forum, the last lines of the Tractatus are most often used as a kind of firewall against discussion of anything deemed religious. His religiosity can be discerned only with difficulty. As i understand it, his acolyte Elizabeth Anscombe and her husband both became committed Catholics. Were they prepared to make explicit what was only implicit in Wittgenstein's texts (I understand he was buried with Catholic funeral rites, but that this caused some disquiet amongst many of his associates.) — Wayfarer

One's sees the same in Quine: "there’s mystery at the bottom of every question ultimately." When the priority is science and clarity at the level of basic questions, one finds Quine's indeterminacy staring back at you, and there is the abiding Kantian making way for faith through a kind of apophatic method of seeing where thought has its limitations. I have always had contempt for this kind of thinking, and I don't think Wittgenstein is right to dismiss ethics and value from meaningful philosophy, which I think addresses your thoughts. Analytic philosophers, at least in Quine's time, really did have that "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem" style of Fideism, and Witt has been said to be just like this. Here is a passage from Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Religion by John Cottingham:

.....for fides, like its Greek counterpart pistis, always connotes a stronger
volitional component than simple assent— some further element of trust and
commitment. As one moves towards extreme forms of fideism, such as that of Søren
Kierkegaard, the volitional element becomes stronger. ‘Faith does not need proof,’
asserted Kierkegaard, ‘indeed it must regard proof as its enemy’ (Kierkegaard 1941
[1846], p. 31).. And in a famous passage he observed: ‘Christianity is spirit, spirit is
inwardness, inwardness is subjectivity, subjectivity is essential passion."

He adored Kierkegaard. A family of suicides, Wittgenstein himself living on the edge. The more you objectify something, the more it loses its primordiality and philosophy kills religious primordiality if one takes it like Simon Critchley does where he says, philosophy begins in disappointment! BUT: what is disappointment? It is the question. The question, the "piety of thought: Intrudes into this primordiality and undoes the beliefs that are there, but only to bring one back with a more ponderous and justified interpretative pov. This is what Witt didn't see, both he and Kierkegaard. Certainly philosophy can cheapen the meaning of religion, but religion stays interpretatively naive without it. And interpretation is what allows us to make progress in understanding, an apophatic process delivering the bare givenness of the world, the latter being the positive foundation of religion (contra the indeterminacy, which is the entirely negative).

There is an ancient tradition of aphophaticism in Christianity, the acknowledgement of the deficiencies of speech and reason to reach out to the divine. But that tradition was still sacramental and sacerdotal, much was embodied in and conveyed by the liturgy, the rites and rituals, even the architecture. All of which was driven by the awareness of the imperfection of ordinary human nature, a.k.a. the fallen state. Only an exceptionally perceptive reader might be able to glean that from reading Wittgenstein. — Wayfarer

Well, it depends on what you are reading, He doesn't talk like a religious person at all in his serious writing (recall Kierkegaard's serious writing is a lot like this), but in the implications of wht he says, and in the letters and conversations and various other places, he makes it clear (again, the copy of Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief that he nearly memorized comes to mind) that he was a spiritual person, indeed, but philosophy just should mind its own business in this. As he says in Culture and Value, the good is what he calls divinity. I believe he tags this with, "that about sums it up." He won't talk about it, but I have read a few papers on his religious thinking, and that is as far as I will go, because I am far less interested in getting Wittgenstein right than I am in understanding the world and our existence. Wittgenstein I find very helpful in this.

I was simply making the throwaway point that just because someone contemplates transcendence or the priesthood does not in itself mean much. — Tom Storm

Yes, I gathered as much. The priesthood is an institution, transcendence in the context of religion is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence. To contemplate the former is just mundane as I see it. A love of those churchy fetishes or some Freudian or Humean retreat from reality. The latter is an entirely different. This latter is Wittgenstein. Russell called him a mystic.

So did Stalin. (the latter actually made it to the seminary but was booted out) — Tom Storm

Heh, heh, why Tom Storm, what are you suggesting? That Wittgenstein's spirituality was just as stuipidly conceived and corruptible by power...as Joseph Stalin??

, I don't buy, unfortunately for us all. — schopenhauer1

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.