I can’t agree because, if I’ve been following your reason rightly, your duality (real land/phony water) expresses a fetish. Wouldn’t you feel kinship with anyone who shared your fetish? It need not be a community.

First, I assume you are labeling the hypothesis as a duality real land phony water for convenience. You are following well enough to know that such a label does not really define it, but let's carry on.
I want to "cooperate" and agree that I would feel such a kinship, but I truly do not know. Likely because kinship, though functional at the institutional level of religions is irrelevant to my understanding of the essence.
I agree with you that binding/community is a manifestation of religions as they developed, but not necessarily its essence.
Also, I think you'll agree that etymology, the latin root, though helpful, is not a conclusive way of understanding the essence.
I would feel something positive from agreement from others, but I am not sure if kinship is the root of that feeling. Maybe it is, bonding being a real organic drive for humans.
But then, so can the same be said of politics, philosophy, sports, etc etc etc. we seek agreement because of the pleasant feeling triggered by our drive to bond with others of our species.
Look, I reiterate, maybe you are right and bonding is the essence of religion, but in the sense that bonding is also the essence of law, society, the family etc etc.
You are definitely raising some very helpful points (for me to consider). I hope you are benefiting, as much as I am.

is kinship not an ego less drive? I get that quickly egos rush in; buy at its "essence."

… the same be said of politics, philosophy, sports, etc etc etc. — ENOAH

Exactly.

Religious kinship is magnitudes deeper because it assumes shared core values.

is kinship not an ego less drive? I get that quickly egos rush in; buy at its "essence."

I’m afraid that kinship is inherently tribal in nature, and that’s why religions are so tribal in nature.

No reason for me to disagree. Why not religions are tribal because kinship is tribal, and kinship is a driving force or fundamental element in religions.

I could stop there and feel the pleasure of our bond.. .

But the essence. .

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate and note the importance of your perspective (that sounds like lip service but I mean it. Ultimately, how could I know?)

Religion IS metaethics... — Constance

I cannot see how that could be true. Religion does not tell us what good, evil, right, and wrong are. Does it?

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.

Yes. I'm good with that. I only refer to trace relationship as a courtesy, the final convenient fiction, imagined as "taking place" just as human existence leaves being and engages time, just as mind's perception displaces sensation with signifiers of the latter, and we lose our point of return. There is no trace because the gap between mind and being is untraceable. We cannot be being through the mediation of time; even the ego is of time and has no place in a True reduction beyond mind. — ENOAH

But when you say untraceable, I find room for issue. It is a simple thing, yet troubling. It goes again to agency. Whatever is outside of the states of affairs of possible discourse, is revealed to "someone" that is not merely a construct. It is impossible for there to be disclosure without "real" agency. This I take to be axiomatic. And this goes double for value intense experience. Frankly, I had never really seen this clearly until now. The question is, is it possible for an idea or an experience or a disclosure of any kind to be both what it is, yet occurring to "no one" ? Not about occurring in some locality, which is trivially true (Locality?), but experience of any kind requires it to be an experience to, or of someone. There is no such thing as an unmoored experience.

Consider also: A babe in arms has no constructed agency, no historical self, neither personal nor cultural, yet her suffering and delight must have agency. Dogs and cats, pigs and goats alike. What makes an animal a moral agency? The capacity to suffer and have delight

This does not make the "untraceable" less than what it "is". Strange how this works: Being is not an abstraction, nor is it derived from anything. One has to stick to how if is disclosed, not simply that it is disclosed.

If the former is sound, that shouldn't matter. — ENOAH

That is an interesting thing to say. The soundness of deconstruction must refer to the method. To me, it is the logical completion of Husserl's epoche, which is what the contemporary French phenomenologists like Henry say. One brackets and brackets until language confronts itself, the final frontier, one could say, and what remains is to cease thinking altogether, the final emancipation from the constraints of language; not unlike the Buddhist, no? Takes practice, but this is likely philosophy's telos. Deconstruction takes one to annihilation of our existence, the encultured agency of meanings. This is the only "soundness" that survives the method, but to return to the above, this cannot be the end of agency itself. Such a thing is not conceivable.

I get it entirely. But with respect, I am not using Organic from the perspective of a scientist and in my humble opinion, while I should employ the right terminology as best I can etc., in this case, being an unconventional viewpoint, there is no "better" word to describe the human qua being, than organic. And I sense the word is slightly offensive because of the implications for spirit which we have been so conditioned to favor. My rejection of spirit is not scientific, on the contrary, it is profoundly "religious" in the way you have been in my opinion properly referring. — ENOAH

Spirit is a term loaded. I prefer "tout autre".It is, after all, only negatively conceived, though it depends on the individual as to what actually survives the phenomenological reduction, which I think deconstruction to be the end game of.

Still a bit mystified by "organic," though.

Still a bit mystified by "organic," though. — Constance

To try simply, borrowing (not necessarily endorsing) an Abrahamic metaphor, so called "God" cares only about the living(ness) of "his" "creation" i.e., organic; and not the becoming, knowledge, that "he" actually warned humans against. Out of the latter, we invented a universe of our own, unreal, and not "precious" to "God." Now, yes, I am being "poetic" and do not necessarily hold to "God," and "precious." My point is, we have been clinging to knowledge at the direct expense of living. Living is not in our constructions, but in our being. The whole false spirit/body duality, is a direct result of that clinging.

The question is, is it possible for an idea or an experience or a disclosure of any kind to be both what it is, yet occurring to "no one" ? Not about occurring in some locality, which is trivially true (Locality?), but experience of any kind requires it to be an experience to, or of someone. There is no such thing as an unmoored experience. — Constance

Is this the "tree falls in a forest" conundrum? I say it makes a sound. To humans only, the question matters, because of the illusion of separation between sound and perceiver/object and subject/cause and effect. EDIT: experience, by the way, I hold to be restricted to humans. So that is why "there is no such thing as an unmoored experience;" there is no real such thing as "experience" period.

Consider also: A babe in arms has no constructed agency, no historical self, neither personal nor cultural, yet her suffering and delight must have agency — Constance

Perfect illustration, the babe has no self based experience; no agency. Not mother feeds me; rather, just feeding.

I cannot see how that could be true. Religion does not tell us what good, evil, right, and wrong are. Does it? — MoK

Well, it tries to. But the point here is that when we are trying to understand something in the world, we look to a description of how that thing appears. So we "observe" religion much as we would, say, the law, or geology or anything we want to understand. I am saying religion is what we encounter when ethics meets metaphysics. So what is ethics and what is metaphysics? In ethics, there turns up something apodictic, which is really not the way philosophers prefer to think about ethics, because apodicticity is irreducible. I.e., nothing to talk about.
So what to do now? What if ethics were apodictic? I am claiming it is.

Well, it tries to. — Constance

To my knowledge, no religion describes good, evil, right, and wrong. It just gives a set of commands: what we ought to do (considered as good) and what we ought not to do (considered as evil).

But the point here is that when we are trying to understand something in the world, we look to a description of how that thing appears. So we "observe" religion much as we would, say, the law, or geology or anything we want to understand. I am saying religion is what we encounter when ethics meets metaphysics. So what is ethics and what is metaphysics? In ethics, there turns up something apodictic, which is really not the way philosophers prefer to think about ethics, because apodicticity is irreducible. I.e., nothing to talk about.
So what to do now? What if ethics were apodictic? I am claiming it is. — Constance

There are two problems here even if we accept that ethics is apodictic: (1) Which religion is the correct one? and (2) What is the reason for religion being the only reliable source when it comes to ethics?

(1) is important since there are conflicts in many religions and even there are conflicts within a single religion. (2) What if someone comes up with an apodictic idea regarding ethics such as each human has all rights when it comes to his or her life but she or he does not have any right when it comes to the life of others unless both individuals agree on terms and conditions?

Still a bit mystified by "organic," though. — Constance

I imagine not just the Abrahamic, but Western philosophy too, had always entertained an intuition about this--that what happens in Human Consciousness, is not Real. Although, Mind itself having evolved "an interest" in its own survival and
growth, developed mechanisms which block the obvious, that Reality is the living organism, and out of this, emerges the attachment western philosophy cannot shake, the reification of itself, presented to us as Spirit, and its necessary dualism. The intuition is expressed earlier than Plato, but with him the attachment to mind, and corresponding demeaning of the flesh, begins to structure the future. Kant I think knew it, that reality was a thing not knowable by mind, but actually inaccessible to it. But he understandably did the ethical thing and steered clear. Focusing instead on the best way he could present Mind as Constructed, experience as just projections of that, for his time, and given his locus in time. Then the thing unfolds. It is not Scientistism, nor Empiricism, nor physicalism, which prompts me to view reality as organic. It is, I genuinely, ironically, believe. The comical is I shouldn't even attempt to prove it. Proving it is not it. But so called we, actually are. But alas, lije everyone else, I am no less attached to the reified Mind. That makes me necessarily speak.

Mind being make-believe (construct-project), by the way, is not good or bad, mind is both. That's just how it evolved after trial and error, most efficiently. In order to perpetuate construction and projection, it evolved difference, causing a reason for construction and projection, time, narrative or linear form of experience, cause and effect, logic, grammar, subject, me. This is a significant thing for metaphysics to go on dreaming about forever. Why does it have to be real?

To my knowledge, no religion describes good, evil, right, and wrong. It just gives a set of commands: what we ought to do (considered as good) and what we ought not to do (considered as evil). — MoK

But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place. As for a description, this is what observation does. So what is there to observe? Just the arbitrary command (which may be a good idea or not. The point is that the determination about its goodness or badness is not based on justification and merit).

What I intend here is to think about ethics as a phenomenon: take any ethical matter and ask, what makes for its ethicality? The essence of ethics. Ask about the essence of common ideas and you get definitional content that is contingent, that is, whatever is said defers to other content. Ask what a teacher is, say, and other words come flooding in about teachers, what they do, the qualities they have, and ask about what these are and more definitional qualities ensue; and this simply never ends. Contingency yields no necessities, just dependencies. No language is stand alone.

There are two problems here even if we accept that ethics is apodictic: (1) Which religion is the correct one? and (2) What is the reason for religion being the only reliable source when it comes to ethics?

(1) is important since there are conflicts in many religions and even there are conflicts within a single religion. (2) What if someone comes up with an apodictic idea regarding ethics such as each human has all rights when it comes to his or her life but she or he does not have any right when it comes to the life of others unless both individuals agree on terms and conditions? — MoK

One cannot "come up with" an apodictic idea. If you were to look into the nature of logic, everywhere you look you would find apodicticity (or apriority, or necessity). One big tautology. I am saying the same is true for ethics (and hence, religion). The analogy goes like this: Logic is not about the many logical problem solving affairs we engage in, for these are entangled with things that have nothing to do with logic, referring to all the complications of our intertwined lives. Logic in itself is about the apriori principles of reasoning. Ethics stands in the world in a similar way. The ethics of my obligation to pay a debt or refrain from harming others, and so forth, is not about the facts of the cases. A fact just sits there: The soup is 35 degrees F. But put this in an ethical setting, as with my promise to someone to heat the soup well above one hundred degrees, and this fact is now ethically in play. The details are variable (it could have been a stew, or the desire to make it cooler, not warmer, and so on), but no detail has an ethical dimension to it.

So what is this apodicticity of ethical matters about? Value. Ask, what is it for something to be apodictic? It is for that thing's contradiction to be impossible to imagine, as with causality, say: one cannot imagine an object self-moving. Value refers us to the world, not reason, and specifically to the value in play, as with the satisfaction hot soup brings or the peace that comes with the confidence that promises will be kept. Ethics is ALWAYS about some value in play. No value in play, and ethics simply vanishes.

So finally, what is it about value as such that is apodictic? One must look to the world, for here lies value; it is IN the pains and delights of our existence. Long story short lies in an example: The injunction not bury a knife's blade into one's neighbor's back rests entirely with the horrible pain this brings. One may want to talk about principles of ethics, but these just beg the the question. Pain cannot be second guessed. Pain is apodictically "bad".

Of course, the statement here is not complete.

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. — Constance

You are now:

1. Mind reading;
2. Insulting;
3. Refusing to engage;
4. Doubling-down on your incredibly intense failure to be a functional interlocutor.

You are now simply lying to get past the points brought up to you. You haven't engaged a single work, and have (in three consecutive posts) fallen back on pure ad hominem. You are either incredibly dishonest, or incapable of understanding what you pretend to. Either way, go well.

Religion's answer: know that your ego is nothing. There is a Reality that is/does without your ego. And that's your salvation from su[ff]ering. — ENOAH

This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. The world's oldest confidence game ritually over-promises and under-delivers: false hope. Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this.

This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. The world's oldest confidence game ritually over-promises and under-delivers: false hope. Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this. — 180 Proof

:up:

First, I understand your position, and there are approaches to religion where I would agree with you. Outside of what each of us thinks of as "essence" of religion, I likely have no dispute with any claim that religions per se and in practice are rarely liberating from suffering, if ever.

Second, and this is most important, I reiterate that my expressions are entirely hypothetical, and would likely fail even the test of logic. (especially falsifiability).

Then why?

Fair question. My responses below may address that.

This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. — 180 Proof

Yes. We can't escape the enumerated examples of suffering until death. Salvation is a term borrowed from "religion" and is of course misleading. My admittedly overzealous assertion for what it's worth is that religion--loosely, focus on/concern with the transcendent (I can easily adjust that "definition")--as opposed to religions and their various failed manifestations; can provide "the right attitude" (though "right" implies orthodoxy and that's not what I mean) to bear the suffering, by "enlightening" us to the transient nature of that thing which is most desperate to escape it. That is, by pointing to an ultimate reality beyond the suffering.

Yes. I already see the ways in which you can properly dispute this. However, 1. Space and time; 2. The very nature of what I'm suggesting has its proper place in doing something and necessarily not in discourse.

Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this. — 180 Proof

I completely agree with you. That is where both religion, and, with respect, much philosophy, east and west, has gone astray. That is the exact point. Fetishization of the Subject, causes our awareness to focus on that illusion as a thing which suffers and ought not to. I'm wondering whether (like so many things which history corrupts) the essence of religion (to remind/warn against etc. this fetishizing of the ego) has been "lost."

In any event, I'm clearly having difficulty expressing that clearly. I'm not fixated on an idea which I alter to meet with criticism. Believe me that I get your criticism, but am only responding because it appears the point I am trying to make is misunderstood.

Yes, religions are not successful at dealing with suffering; but not because there is utterly no valid function. Rather, because the valid function--to de-fetishize and de-mythologize the ego--has been lost.

I am not prepared to do an exegesis of scriptures, or to review theologians here. But if it helps (and at the obvious risk of further confusing) here are a couple of the sources for my intuition/perhaps bold hypothesis that religion is essentially "designed" to put the ego in its place: Christianity's essence "love your neighbor as yourself, love God with all your might." Islam is by name, submission (to god). In the eastern religions, Hinduism /Buddhism, this emphasis on "liberation" from ego is even patently obvious. Atman is Brahman/ there is no self. Yes, all of the aforementioned have bastardized this proposed essence.

Any way, for what that was worth. Maybe I'm completely out to lunch. But I haven't been persuaded otherwise. Like I said, not from any aversion to being so persuaded.

But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place. As for a description, this is what observation does. So what is there to observe? Just the arbitrary command (which may be a good idea or not. The point is that the determination about its goodness or badness is not based on justification and merit). — Constance

What is your religion and why did you choose it?

Pain is apodictically "bad". — Constance

Not to a masochist.

To try simply, borrowing (not necessarily endorsing) an Abrahamic metaphor, so called "God" cares only about the living(ness) of "his" "creation" i.e., organic; and not the becoming, knowledge, that "he" actually warned humans against. Out of the latter, we invented a universe of our own, unreal, and not "precious" to "God." Now, yes, I am being "poetic" and do not necessarily hold to "God," and "precious." My point is, we have been clinging to knowledge at the direct expense of living. Living is not in our constructions, but in our being. The whole false spirit/body duality, is a direct result of that clinging. — ENOAH

There is a lot in this. I won't wag a critical finger in your direction, but I should ask questions. For example, Does the Bible have any prima facie authority at all on matters of philosophy? What does creation have to do with it and what is the connection between creation and the idea of the organic? Is the old Testament really talking about a biological category? God does not fit comfortably into a discussion of basic questions because it generates its own questions, which is a sign of bad metaphysics; questions about God's greatness and the omni-this-and-that are grounded in the very thing you are trying to avoid, which is the excesses of knowledge claims which need to be eliminated in order to see the matter clearly. This is what Husserl's reduction does, or can do, though one does not have to agree with everything he says. This is why phenomenology really is the "science" of phenomenology: it studies the apriori structure of perception and its content as open, because the reduction is open: it takes inquiry closer to what is presupposed by everydayness.

As to that false spirit/body duality, I find this objectionable in the way this is taken historically, which is as an ontological duality (something Heidegger strongly objected to. Ontology for him is
equiprimorial" meaning not about some singularity of existence, like Descartes' res cogitans or res extensa). But this is not to say there are no differences in the way the world shows itself. Certainly, if you think, as Husserl did, that an object is constituted by the contribution made by perception, then the question goes to the perceiver, as with Kant and cognition. But just a rationalist. Rational primordiality certainly does not describe the world (for one thing, it does not have Derrida available to deconstruct it. Ask, what is reason? and deconstruction takes you to the countless contexts in which it is found. It is "scattered" if you will. Hermeneutics can do this, Derrida shows (see Caputo's Radical Hermeneutics. Caputo is a post modern....errrr, hard to say what he is. He is a post modern philosopher of affirmation) that is, remove a meaning from its "place" in some absolute hierarchy of the way the world is. I am reading, or trying to read, Derrida's latter work (Incidentally, I have thousands of pdf files. You are welcome to them all if you can tell me a way they can be sent that costs nothing to me and does not involve handing out my email address. Huge files. Many gbs) and clearly, one has to be able to have a sense of irony to grasp this (Rorty names his book Contingency, Irony and Solidarity --in which there is an entire chapter on Derrida): irony is a principle feature of language in its ability to generate difference), for he is being deliberately ironic, because he is trying to make the impossible point about the "trace" being a generative feature of language, while actually speaking (writing)! Which is why, like Wittgenstein, the whole conversation is under erasure. Witt is really saying something very close to Derrida

But I was trying to say that duality certainly does have its place as long as ontology is not about something like Descartes' had in mind. Though this is slippery, for in phenomenology, what you could call categorical ontology is certainly okay. I mean, we can talk about differences among phenomena, and group these as science might talk taxonomically about things, but when the Occam's razor of the reduction bracketing cuts deeper and deeper until one is left facing "being as such" then where justified true belief have its place? This is really what is behind my objection to your defense of the unsayble and unthinkable and this extends to the early Wittgenstein: obviously we can think what cannot be thought! For without thought we are as infants.

Knowledge at the expense of direct living: Slippery again: My quarrel with popular religion is that since it possesses a great lack of justification for its beliefs, it is arbitrary, and being arbitrary and authoritative is a very bad combination. Philosophy is essentially religious in that it is the objective analysis of our world at the basic level of inquiry and this leads to acknowledging foundational indeterminacy which is the essence of religion. All roads lead to this foundational discussion.

The question is, is it possible for an idea or an experience or a disclosure of any kind to be both what it is, yet occurring to "no one" ? Not about occurring in some locality, which is trivially true (Locality?), but experience of any kind requires it to be an experience to, or of someone. There is no such thing as an unmoored experience.
— Constance

Is this the "tree falls in a forest" conundrum? I say it makes a sound. To humans only, the question matters, because of the illusion of separation between sound and perceiver/object and subject/cause and effect. EDIT: experience, by the way, I hold to be restricted to humans. So that is why "there is no such thing as an unmoored experience;" there is no real such thing as "experience" period. — ENOAH

No, it is not about what we mean by sound. It is about whether one can make sense of an experience of, say, terrible pain without agency. I think this is an important question. I say a "disembodied" pain is impossible, and to speak of such a thing shows only a possibility of words, i.e., one can SAY this, sure. But it is not unlike talking about causes and effects: one cannot imagine a causeless effect. Can't explain this, but it is just primoridially true, if you like (Edith Stein uses this term a lot). So with a pain, or pleasure of some kind, this is impossible without agency of some kind. Who knows, perhaps atman is the Brahman and you and I are one, making agency this grand eternal singularity. Could be.

I completely agree with you. That is where both religion, and, with respect, much philosophy, east and west, has gone astray. That is the exact point. Fetishization of the Subject, causes our awareness to focus on that illusion as a thing which suffers and ought not to. I'm wondering whether (like so many things which history corrupts) the essence of religion (to remind/warn against etc. this fetishizing of the ego) has been "lost." — ENOAH

A thing which suffers? Nobody argues this. Heidegger interpreted Descartes to make the point that dasein is not what he called a mode of desein's being called "presence at hand" but this isn't where the interesting phenomenology takes the issue. Post modern thinking on the theological side of all this takes one to transcendence. On this lies at the end of the ontological question of agency. Put it like this: Kant was all in on this absurd metaphysical affirmation based on the transcendence discovered in the analysis of judgment. You go deep enough into questioning the structure of actual thought and judgment and you discover apodicticity beyond the reach of experience. Such is where transcendence takes one for Kant--to an utterly vacuous world of absolute existence that has no ground at all in lived experience.

Kant is to metaphysics what Hobbes is to political philosophy in that he opened a door that he himself could not pass through. The Critique had to be critiqued! Michel Henry and his ilk (recall that you liked this thinker earlier) come along and say, look, if you are looking for something absolute about our existence, you are simply mad to bring all attention to a complete abstraction of and from, well, our existence. The critique of the critique is simple: you want something that abides through all logically possible objection (like Descartes' doubt that inspired Husserl's reduction), just (my example) put you hand in boiling water or over a lighted match. Ask now, what IS that? This question is not ever even touched by analytic philosophy (take a quick look at the metaethical nihilism that runs through the thinking among those posting here. Ask this question of them and they will either not respond or ignore what you ask move elsewhere. Imagine THE most salient feature of our existence and a philosophy that is entirely afraid to even approach it.

At any rate, if you think about the self, human dasein, as a thing, you are deep in scientific reductive territory.

But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place. As for a description, this is what observation does. So what is there to observe? Just the arbitrary command (which may be a good idea or not. The point is that the determination about its goodness or badness is not based on justification and merit).
— Constance
What is your religion and why did you choose it?

Pain is apodictically "bad".
— Constance
Not to a masochist. — MoK

I am of the school that says if something hasn't been through the analytic grinder, then it is not worthy of belief. I no more take religion in any popular sense seriously at all. Such a thing is no longer a a living possibility.

If a masochist likes X, then X isn't pain to the masochist. I take this as both analytically true as well as experientially.

This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. The world's oldest confidence game ritually over-promises and under-delivers: false hope. Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this. — 180 Proof

Its overpromising and underdelivering is itself for into metaphysics, i.e., beyond verification and falsification.

Christian metaphysics is not at all egoic, but precisely the opposite: it is in the denial of the ego and its personality and attachments (fetish or otherwise. Freud thought that the entire structure of a culture was something of a fetish of sublimated libido). Kierkegaard called this hereditary sin.

If you re looking for what is essentially religious about our existence, it begins with the OP. Why waste time on the silliness of historical popular religion? These self implode right at the outset of inquiry.

I am of the school that says if something hasn't been through the analytic grinder, then it is not worthy of belief. — Constance

Well, that is quite the opposite of what you stated regarding religion. To you: "But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place.".

I no more take religion in any popular sense seriously at all. Such a thing is no longer a a living possibility. — Constance

Do you believe in God? If yes which kind of God It is?

If a masochist likes X, then X isn't pain to the masochist. I take this as both analytically true as well as experientially. — Constance

I am a masochist myself so I can tell you that is the pain that I like.

Well, that is quite the opposite of what you stated regarding religion. To you: "But religions are about a dogmatic authority, and so the analytic of good and bad has no place.". — MoK

No. What is defended and discussed here is an analytic of religion, not religion as it is taken up in regular affairs. Read the OP.

God is a term that issues from the basic religious situation. It belongs to a basket of terms that create issues rather than resolve them. Say God is the greatest possible being, then I will give a hundred ways to entangle this into an entirely contrived issue generating concept. Wittgenstein was right: leave such things alone for, putting is simply, lack of grounding in the world. In other words, the world shows itself to us and our job in philosophy is to say what is there at the most basic level.

But you don't give the idea its due: take someone's masochism regards beatings as somehow delightful. The pain of the beatings is no longer, therefore bad, or another way to go would be to say that what is bad in the pain is entangled with something that makes if good (a fetish's very definition) and familiarity makes for a settled matter, psychologically. On this point I don't care about the variability of the way we experience the world. All that matters is the value in play when value is entangled (it almost always is). It can be clear as a bell, as when the flame is put beneath the palm of my hand--hard to fetishize this one. Not impossible, but then...well, I hard to even imagine. I can imagine Thích Quảng Đức did; he was the Buddhist monk who set himself ablaze in protest. But this is a different matter as he had trained himself to ignore the pain, not enjoy it. But the source of enjoyment is just not at issue. What is at issue is the nature of pain when one is feeling pain. Just that. You have a fetish such that burns and beatings are a good time, then I do not classify your beatings as painful, but delightful.

I wrote this piece of nonsense:" Its overpromising and underdelivering is itself for into metaphysics, i.e., beyond verification and falsification." Should have written this: overpromising and underdelivering is itself metaphysics, that is, beyond verification and falsification.

Its overpromising and underdelivering is itself metaphysics, that is, beyond verification and falsification. — Constance

:roll:

Well, ime, metaphysics – making sense in the most general way of the whole of reality – is conceptual (i.e. presuppositional > descriptive), not theoretical (i.e. propositoonal > explanatory). Besides, metaphysics does not entail the 'false hopes' which are the basis and motivators of religion.

Christian metaphysics is not at all egoic ...

All Christian sects preach that every person has an "eternal soul" (i.e. "I AM" = EGO sum (re: "imago dei")) that will be either "saved" or "damned", no? Iirc from my Jesuitical education, each follower of Christ seeks only the "eternal salvation" of his "eternal soul" ... in the world to come". Augustinian / Kierkeegardian subjectivity (i.e. "leap of faith") metaphysically screams "ME ME ME". :pray: :eyes:

what is essentially religious about our existence

Humans' denial of death via myths / symbols of 'immortality' (e.g. scapegoating, redemption / propitiation sacrifice, martyrdom, "teleological suspension of the ethical", etc) as I've pointed out on this thread ...

(page 1)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904100

(re: religion – more broadly from another thread)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/676697

No. What is defended and discussed here is an analytic of religion, not religion as it is taken up in regular affairs. Read the OP. — Constance

Ok, my apology. I read your OP a couple of times and now I know what you are arguing about. To me, the essence of religion is not about ethics at all but about spiritual and mystical experiences. Although there are religions with a set of commands, what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, but to my understanding there is no religion that provides reasons why an act, good or evil, is right or wrong. Therefore, religion is not about ethics.

God is a term that issues from the basic religious situation. It belongs to a basket of terms that create issues rather than resolve them. Say God is the greatest possible being, then I will give a hundred ways to entangle this into an entirely contrived issue generating concept. Wittgenstein was right: leave such things alone for, putting is simply, lack of grounding in the world. In other words, the world shows itself to us and our job in philosophy is to say what is there at the most basic level. — Constance

I don't think that philosophy can resolve the problems regarding spirituality hence religion. You either have spiritual experience or not. You cannot tell whether a spiritual experience is an illusion created by the brain or it is real (by real I mean that there are spiritual agents in charge of causing the experience).

But you don't give the idea its due: take someone's masochism regards beatings as somehow delightful. The pain of the beatings is no longer, therefore bad, or another way to go would be to say that what is bad in the pain is entangled with something that makes if good (a fetish's very definition) and familiarity makes for a settled matter, psychologically. On this point I don't care about the variability of the way we experience the world. All that matters is the value in play when value is entangled (it almost always is). It can be clear as a bell, as when the flame is put beneath the palm of my hand--hard to fetishize this one. Not impossible, but then...well, I hard to even imagine. I can imagine Thích Quảng Đức did; he was the Buddhist monk who set himself ablaze in protest. But this is a different matter as he had trained himself to ignore the pain, not enjoy it. But the source of enjoyment is just not at issue. What is at issue is the nature of pain when one is feeling pain. Just that. You have a fetish such that burns and beatings are a good time, then I do not classify your beatings as painful, but delightful. — Constance

Glad to see that you agree that the pain is not bad for all agents.

Well, ime, metaphysics – making sense in the most general way of the whole of reality – is conceptual (i.e. presuppositional > descriptive), not theoretical (i.e. propositoonal > explanatory). Besides, metaphysics does not entail the 'false hopes' which are the basis and motivators of religion. — 180 Proof

It certainly does depend on what is meant by metaphysics. Here I refer to metaphysics in the way of "bad metaphysics" which rises out of groundless speculation, I mean, literally speculation that has no ground, as with talk about the nature of God often goes, following through on a supposition that is itself its own presupposition. God is a definitional concept that is the genesis of a great deal of bad metaphysics simply because it is NOT its own presupposition, but is a contingent and constructed concept, something "of parts" that defers to other concepts for its meaning. At any rate, when you talk about overpromising and underdelivering, you implicitly say that delivering and promising make sense in this context. Making sense requires justification, so where does the justification come from? Unless one is able to show that such a thing is demonstrable in the "observable" (belongs in double inverted commas for a good reason) world, either directly or through apriori argument, one will have to resort to what can be neither observed nor inferred from what is observed. The very definition of bad metaphysics.

As to false hopes: one needs to go into this: false hopes about what? Religion does not deal in contingent matters, so it is not about false hopes of any particular (read accidental) issue, the particulars of any of a multitude of ethical problems one can have. So the hope in quiestion here has is analytically reduced something more fundamental, which is discovered IN the very structure of our existence. This is value.

All Christian sects preach that every person has an "eternal soul" (i.e. "I AM" = EGO sum (re: "imago dei")) that will be either "saved" or "damned", no? Iirc from my Jesuitical education, each follower of Christ seeks only the "eternal salvation" of his "eternal soul" ... in the world to come". Augustinian / Kierkeegardian subjectivity (i.e. "leap of faith") metaphysically screams "ME ME ME". :pray: — 180 Proof

Yeah, I know, and it is a fair point to make. But then, it is the "world denied" that made Nietzsche so incensed. If one reads Kierkegaard, especially in The Concept of Anxiety, Sickness Unto Death and, well, everywhere, really, he comes down very hard on the affections we have for this world; indeed, it is his Attack on Christendom that plays this out in concerns about the fallen state of "Christendom" which to him is just the very embodiment of sin. Buddhism and Hinduism are very explicit about this: the world is suffering, an illusion (maya) and we must be delivered from our affections bound therein. These affection are, literally, the indulgences of the ego.

Humans' denial of death via myths / symbols of 'immortality' (e.g. scapegoating, redemption / propitiation sacrifice, martyrdom, "teleological suspension of the ethical", etc) as I've pointed out on this thread ... — 180 Proof

Yes, you pointed it out, but you haven't argued through the OP. So many argue a case about religion as if religion were no more than the sum of bad metaphysics. This is a straw person argument, instantly assailable. It doesn't address religion in its essence. Most of what you cite above are ideas that that are badly defined or have no place in a foundational analysis at all.

As to false hopes: one needs to go into this: false hopes about what? — Constance

"Life after death.". "Resurrection." "Past lives." "Reincarnation." "Release from the Wheel of Rebirth." Etc

bad metaphysics. This is a straw person

Your accusation of "bad metaphysics" is clearly a projection and non sequitur.

projection and non sequitur — 180 Proof

Seems the modus operandi. I cannot fault, though, as it's likely I've come across like this most of the time to you also(and that's ignoring our actual disagreements lol. I just have ideas that are going to be sometimes bad).