Yes, I can see how it would seem like that. But again, we're no closer to the sense in which religious revelation purports to connote insight into the unconditioned. — Wayfarer

Unconditioned meaning foundational to perspective?

But surely there can be a faith that says there's no god as well. — flannel jesus

Maybe, but is faith the right word - is "reasonable confidence" a better term? The problem is anyone can say they have revealed knowledge of something - but why should we accept such a claim? It's inherent to theism that people can have revealed knowledge. It's not inherent to atheism as I understand it.

As an atheist, I would say I have heard no reasons to suggest that god is a useful concept. It seems incoherent and does not assist my sense making activities. Some atheists think they "know" there is no God. I'm not one of those.

The problem fdrake has with this thinking is that it's utterly totalising despite pretending not to be, and can't be articulated without reducing every aspect of human comportment to a single existential-discursive structure. It's everything it claims not to be, all the time. The utter hypocrisy of the perspective is nauseating. Everything mediates everything else, "there is no ontological distinction between discourse and reality" {because the distinction is a discursive one}. It's The One with delusions of being The Many. — fdrake

Wow. Interesting.

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of  what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 39

Aka Nietzsche's foundation for Amor Fati from the Gay Science 276. Aka even if it doesn't bring you to love them, it will move you in the direction in which Nietzsche details the superman becoming a reality... to overcome your destructive and divisive animal nature, in suffering with them from them by simply looking the other direction "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet." Faith of faith isn't faith, but "faith of a sort..."?

SO let's check out the consequences of this view.

Belief is holding that something is true. One can believe that something is true for all sorts of reasons, or for no reason at all. Rational folk will try to believe stuff that is true, and so will use arguments and evidence and such, and ground their beliefs.

Faith is more that just holding that something is true. Faith requires that one believe even in the face of adversity. Greater faith is had by those who believe despite the arguments and the evidence.

So those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists.

Make of this what you will.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

Cunning reversal, they are the faithful that overcome themselves in their opposite? To inciting to higher and higher... Nietzsche would be very proud of this from YOU of all people Banno.

Or faith is the antithesis of rationality.

or they grew out of each other. Still an excellent counter argument! The best in the thread imo.

Or faith is the antithesis of rationality. — Banno

If you like. You were born with some of that irrational faith. You can't live without it.

If you like. You were born with some of that irrational faith. You can't live without it. — frank

You have to take something as granted, yes. That's a long way from what is involved in faith. One can review what one takes as granted, but to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith.

Unconditioned meaning foundational to perspective? — fdrake

I think it's a key term which has to all intents dropped from philosophical discourse. That it was arguably last sighted in Hegel, with his depiction of the Absolute, but by then entangled in prolific thickets of arcane scholarly verbiage that overgrew its actual meaning.

There's a journal article I've found, The unconditioned in philosophy of religion, Steven Shakespeare, Nature, 2018 (open access). I've looked at it, but not a lot of it stuck - maybe I'll take another look, although it is developed in a direction I didn't much understand or like. But it is at least an attempt to conceptually separate 'the unconditioned' from the almost-inevitable tendency to say 'oh, you mean God', with all of the implications.

But my intuitive sense is that the difficulty for all of this is that the unconditioned is as a matter of principle beyond the scope of discursive thought (meaning, to all intents, out of bounds).

I'm sorry, but I'm not an admirer of Nietszche. It probably puts us in different worlds, but it can't be helped.

The best in the thread imo. — DifferentiatingEgg

Unfortunately, that wasn't hard.

Is it supposed to be hard? ED?

But my intuitive sense is that the difficulty for all of this is that the unconditioned is as a matter of principle beyond the scope of discursive thought (meaning, to all intents, out of bounds). — Wayfarer

Well no wonder the paper is hard to read.

Section 27 of Pursuit of Truth may be of interest to you from this regard. Quine speaks of responsible and irresponsible beliefs.

Cunning reversal, they are the faithful that overcome themselves in their opposite? To inciting to higher and higher... Nietzsche would be very proud of this from YOU of all people Banno. — DifferentiatingEgg

So much the worse for Nietzsche, then.

Now now, I know it hurts that you of all people had to offer up a Nietzschean counter. But what's the best way to drum up conversation? To allow for a plurality of interpretations thus you leave the original syllogism ambiguous... :joke:

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy pg 4

That you of all people put on Nietzsche's mask is a "win" for me.

The syllogism itself took less than 60 seconds of pondering... but look how much conversation it's drummed up. I don't care about it being perfect... and in the process I've learned things. I already addressed that it was an ambiguous syllogism that allows for tons of equivocation.

There is no meta-interpretation.
— Joshs

Speaking of convictions.. — Wayfarer

Not a meta-conviction, a contingent enactment of sense that must be reproduced continually if it is to apply beyond the moment of its utterance. At this moment I anticipate no meta-interpretation that can coherent be applied to anyone. Put differently, I am aware in the moment that i proclaim ‘no meta-interpretations’ that my own thought produces a slightly new sense of what I already meant to say. i can then apply this thought to other persons in other times and come up with a similar but not identical conclusion. As long as a I continue to affirm my conviction (the same differently each time ) concerning everyone everywhere, from my situated contextual vantage , I will repeat that conviction. Do you see the distinction between this process of repeated contextual variation and re-verification , and a meta-proclamation of context-independent truth? The latter doesnt take actual, lived time and history seriously, but tries to subordinate them to a supra-temporal abstraction.

Do you see the distinction between this process of repeated contextual variation and a meta-proclamation of truth? — Joshs

I see it, but I believe it is pointless, in a way, sisyphean. But then, my meta-philosophical stance is oriented around the possibility of a cosmic philosophy, that is, a philosophy that situates the reality of human existence in the context of the cosmos.

Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. — Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament, Thomas Nagel

I realise we'll never be on the same page in any of this, but I appreciate having an intelligent person to explain it to.

it is pointless, in a way, sisyphean — Wayfarer

Erm... that's the Christian mythology of Sisyphus not the Grecian... I would perhaps place my faith in the Grecian perspective of the myth...that is Sisyphus is a Greek Noble who lived to the Grecian ideal of Eu Prattein and became a demigod of his own ideal... for outsmarting Zeus and Thanatos.

Attention again should be paid to the almost benevolent nuances which, for instance, the Greek nobility imports into all the words by which it distinguishes the common people from itself; note how continuously a kind of pity, care, and consideration imparts its honeyed flavour, until at last almost all the words which are applied to the vulgar man survive finally as expressions for "unhappy," "worthy of pity" (compare δειλο, δείλαιος, πονηρός, μοχθηρός]; the latter two names really denoting the vulgar man as labour-slave and beast of burden)—and how, conversely, "bad," "low," "unhappy" have never ceased to ring in the Greek ear with a tone in which "unhappy" is the predominant note: this is a heritage of the old noble aristocratic morality, which remains true to itself even in contempt (let philologists remember the sense in which ὀιζυρός, ἄνολβος, τλήμων, δυστυχεῑν, ξυμφορά used to be employed). The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon — Nietzsche, from GoM 10

You have to take something as granted, yes. That's a long way from what is involved in faith. One can review what one takes as granted, but to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith. — Banno

Sounds like you made up your own religion.

It doesn’t matter what you think in your head. It's what your body does, your arms and hands, your legs, feet, your face, your eyes your voice, your feelings. — ENOAH

Hey Enoah. So let’s collapse the dualism. Mind IS body. We live inside the illlusion.

If we collapse it all back together, we can call the illusion reality just the same. Now, like our thoughts were the illusion and the feelings were reality, the thoughts are the feelings (bodies) and illusion is reality (or reality is illusion).

This is how I come to see that knowledge has less power than belief. Belief is what we act on, it’s what we do - the verb believe - and when we most deeply believe something we already trust it so completel, saying “we know it’s true” (like some conclusion from syllogism) sounds weak or hallow, like something we don’t have to act on. Faith and belief are where power flows. Knowledge and simple thoughts are in the mix but lose power and solid form when divorced from belief.

The problem fdrake has with this thinking is that it's utterly totalising despite pretending not to be, and can't be articulated without reducing every aspect of human comportment to a single existential-discursive structure. It's everything it claims not to be, all the time. The utter hypocrisy of the perspective is nauseating. Everything mediates everything else, "there is no ontological distinction between discourse and reality" {because the distinction is a discursive one}. It's The One with delusions of being The Many.

:up:

Yes, it's a strange sort of dogmatism, sometimes manifesting as the dogmatic presupposition that everyone who disagrees is necessarily a dogmatist. I honestly don't think this would bother me so much if it was put forward in a straightforward manner. Yet it's an area of philosophy where things seem to often be put forward in as abstruse a manner as possible.

It actually reminds me of debates in esoterica. Anyone who disagrees cannot possibly have truly fathomed it, and of course it will prove near impossible to show what "truly fathoming" the doctrines entails.

Not exactly, a quantum of force cannot actually be weaker than it is... you and T Clark have made me consider my perspective a bit more, and what I'm coming to is that ... but say St. Thomas's Quantum of Force in faith is already this grand mountain... we can say his Faith is still as strong... but say instead of St. Thomas being 100% faith-based, he's 60% Faith and 40% logic and perhaps a lack of clarifying here has caused all sorts of equivocations, perhaps of myself even... due to the quantum of force not actually being lesser... just because a persons intellect may be divided in a 60/40 split doesn't necessarily mean that because a persons thought moves to 55/45 split that the quantum of force behind faith grew less... but that the quantum of force behind reason grew more...
there IS a nuance to it... so for some people a quantum of force of faith may not be phased by reason...

Not a blanket quality for all or even most though...

That's probably a better way to look at it. Although again, this will really depend on how one conceives of "faith." I feel that disagreements here often stem from people using the word in quite different ways. Classically conceived, the fruits of the light of faith are generally taken to produce the highest level of understanding, as opposed to assent in the absence of understanding (noeises being superior to dianoia) . On this view, the two might not be so easily separable because both involve the actuality of the intellect and, in the end, the same Logos.

That aside, a common distinction in modern philosophy is "faith in" and "faith that." Faith in others is not reducible to reason, but can certainly be aided by it.

For example, I've had some employees I've had a great deal of faith in. They were great, very diligent. But they liked to go over their work with me, and so we'd run through things step by step. So then, I knew everything tied out, that it was correct. But I certainly didn't lose faith in them through this process, even though it gave me ample, rational evidence that their work was correct. I suppose then one way of putting it is that "faith in" ties to a person, and not to any particular facts.

Perhaps this is also easier to see as respects practical reason. Often, we are not able to get anything like remotely decisive conclusions vis-á-vis moral reasoning. Yet we might have a good deal of faith in certain moral principles.

"faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) — 180 Proof

– make-believe, not (epistemic) belief.

As an atheist, I would say I have heard no reasons to suggest that god is a useful concept. It seems incoherent and does not assist my sense making activities. — Tom Storm

For some g/G is a fetish (of the gaps), for others it's a placebo (anti-anxiety), and for many it's (the) "big Other" (e.g. conspiracy thinking, superstition) ... but it's still the case that too few of us have outgrown these (self-crippling) crutches.

Some atheists think they "know" there is no God. I'm not one of those.

Well, splitting the baby Yeshua, I know that every g/G of theism only exists in the minds of believers, but I'm agnostic about nontheistic "divinity".

So those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this. — Banno

Like e.g. Tertullian, Eckhart, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Wiitgenstein, Tillich ..?

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists.

:smirk:

One can review what one takes as granted, but to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith. — Banno

:100:

Erm... that's the Christian mythology of Sisyphus — DifferentiatingEgg

There is no 'Christian mythology of Sisyphus', it was a Greek myth. Sisyphus was described as the cunning and deceitful king of Corinth (Ephyra in early sources). While he was a ruler, he is not depicted as a "noble" in the sense of living up to an ethical or heroic ideal but was often portrayed as a trickster and an archetype of human cunning and defiance. Unlike figures such as Heracles, who underwent divinization (apotheosis), Sisyphus was punished for his defiance rather than rewarded, that punishment being condemned to rolling a boulder endlessly up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. That's what I meant by the reference. Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus recast him as a heroic figure as an embodiment of human resilience and defiance against absurdity but I never found it persuasive.

I'm agnostic about nontheistic "divinity — 180 Proof

Ye pull back the curtain and there'll be either a person or a statue. Some prefer to expect a guy, some stone

Ye pull back the curtain and there'll be either a person or a statue. Some prefer to expect a guy, some stone — Gregory

???

Sisyphus was punished for his defiance rather than rewarded, that punishment being condemned to rolling a boulder endlessly up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. That's what I meant by the reference. Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus recast him as a heroic figure as an embodiment of human resilience and defiance against absurdity but I never found it persuasive. — Wayfarer

Camus simply does what Nietzsche does repackage Christian psychology with the Myth of Sisyphus. Absurdity is the secular notion of Sin. Still not the Grecian notion. There was no bad conscience, ressentiment, or responsibility in Sisyphus's day. That is fundamentally a Judaeo-Christian morality. We don't have to imagine Sisyphus as happy. He was a Noble who exemplified Eu Prattein. We know he's happy. Thus we know it's not punishment. Because activity = happiness.

The appeal to Nietszche as an authority doesn't impress me. By 'sisyphean' I simply mean the common interpretation of engaging in strenuous and apparently endless activity for no visible result. Indeed a sisyphus gif was for a long time a part of my work email sig.

Its not appeal to Nietzsche... ffs it's literally an ancient Grecian Ideal... that you refuse to acknowledge... activity = happiness and somehow you think Sisyphus's eternal activity is mindless and meaningless because you refuse to accept that we know Sisyphus is happy because of Eu Prattein...

You gotta look at the situation from the Grecoan Ideal... not yours. Step outside your reification of the Sisyphus story that's been passed down via Christian scholars...

Do you think Santa Clause is big in Iran?