The lady is unable to go beyond a merely gratuitous (and personal) comment ...
You told me to sit back and enjoy it.
I told you I was and would be judging performance.
You asked for that judgment, you got it.
LOL! More projection! I most certainly did NOT "ask for ... judgment" ...
... and, anyway, and once again, the lady's "judgment" is reduced to a gratuitous (and personal) comment ...
[MdS] [a] Obviously the lady is NOT able to distinguish and discriminate between using analytical (or "pure") reason [b] to discuss the limits of ALL "metaphysical systems" that aspire to the status of "science" (episteme), and using reason (and obviously the authority of past and present philosophers with a penchant for inventing metaphysical systems) to do precisely that, inventing metaphysical systems — as she does.
[a] Where's this special faculty untainted by the mind?
Please describe it and how you know of it, in addition to how it's untainted by perceptions.
[b] As, pardon, I. Kant did. And you're doing.
[a] It is for the the lady to explain what she means by "untained ["not tarnished, contaminated, or polluted"] by the mind", referred to "analytical (or "pure") reason".
As for "how you know of it", sorry, she will have to familiarize herself with some (good) handbook on the fundamentals of philosophy. I have no time to feed her the basics.
As for the relationship between reason and perceptions, with Kant, reason organizes "raw" perceptions through what are usually called transcendental "categories", organized in "schemes". Again, I have no time to feed her the basics.
[b] For the umpteenth time, to insist in affirming that Kant would have had/developped his own "metaphysical sistem" is such a gross, ignorantclaim, that I cannot be bothered to confute it.
[MdS] As for science, it is the lady who — recently, on another thread — has admitted her inadequacy ...
Point me to that. I suspect (in fact I know) you're mis...understanding.
This should be sufficient ...
“... (... yes, at the risk of seeming to stereotype), women--as a whole--generally aren't all that interested in "dinosaurs." Neither, really, is Biology.
Therefore, I'm waiting for 57 to comment here.
(...)
Well let's see what 57 has and/or MMarcoe (and/or anyone else) and go where the evidence leads.
... and no, no "mis...understanding" ... whatever the lady may protest to the contrary ...
[MdS] The lady should be perfectly aware, from the recent exchange on thread "The Basis for Human Dignity", that, to speak of "human dignity", to speak of man being made in God's "image and likeness" I need to resort NEITHER to metaphysics/ontology, NOR to "realist universals".
So is it nominal worth or real worth?
I leave it for the lady to explain what she means by "nominal worth".
As for the adjective "real" in the expression "real worth" I suspect that the lady is not aware that realismU, as one of the possible answers to the problem of universals, is a specialized, "technical" philosophical word, and means something quite different from realismP, that is "the belief that reality exists independently of observers".
btw, you think just describing man means you're done here? You do realize this is a discussion about the Incarnation?
We need NEITHER a realist definition of the "category man" NOR a realist definition of the "category God" to affirm that Jesus was (still is, BTW ...) the Incarnation of God's eternal Word/Logos, the God-man.
Essentially, all we need is to take seriously (and literally) Luke 1:35 ...
... of course without trying to "reason away" the mystery and the miracle ...
[MdS] NOR do I need to give a definition of Reason, Freedom and Will in terms of metaphysics/ontology, OR of "realist universals": to refer to them, phenomenologically, as "faculties", is perfectly adequate.
And, again, your perception of these noumena are processed through phenomena, how?
The lady is simply parrotting mininglessly Kant's lexicon, here ...
Anyway, contrary to the lady's topsy-turvy approach, it is phenomena that are "processed" by reason through its categories.
Noumena, contrary to Plato's hyper-realist delusion, in particular the delusion that "ideal forms" would be "intuitively perceived", remain inaccessible per se to human mind.
BTW, I had already indicated (MdS, #205) that it is disputable (to say the least) that the combination of (total) Omnipotence and of (total) Foreknowledge that the ladyattributes to God is compatible with the "laws of logic" and with the sound use of reason ...
Not your kind, no.
What "kind"?
For the rest of us, it's just a plain old everyday boring occurrence of affirming the consequent.
The lady is invited to put whatever she (thinks she) is referring to in the form of "affirming the consequent" ...
MdS
Revelation is above, not against Reason
“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that it is the same for "Catholic Anglicans" (is that the expression?) but I have always assumed that for Christians inspiration is NOT some generic "intuition of deeper truths", but the revelation of His own Will and Purpose for all humans by the One and Only True God and that, in this respect, ONLY a well specific set of books, the Bible, is inspired.
No, I think you are right, in general. Personally, however, I view the Bible as a much more human book--with the ultimate nihil obstat which we take on faith.
Of course "we —ultimately— take it on faith" ... the point is, do you, amcolph?
Apparently your position is rather more "nuanced" ... may I go as far as calling it ... "universalist"?
[amcolph]
[MdS] ... we can easily speak of "degree of maturity" precisely because we have no doubt that a (human) child and a (human) adult are both ... human, and share (respectively, in partial form of in full) the same faculties.
And so it may be with the mental faculties we are discussing--that other creatures share them in partial form.
I see, so you are one of those who subscribe to chimps, elephants, dolphins etc. having ... bah ...
Of course, for you, who claim to be "rather Kantian", none of the above is. Anyway, I leave that "animalistic fantasy" all to you and recommend for your reading something more ... Kantian, like, for instance, Reason, Freedom and Kant: An Exchange, by Robert Hanna and A. W. Moore, 2005, PDF, @ users.ox.ac.uk
[amcolph] As I said before, [a] I don't know that a mental faculty like Freedom did emerge from a process like random variation and selection. [b] I don't think anyone does know how mental faculties like freedom arose. [c] It is entirely possible that the mental faculties we are discussing arose by some other process and may have been the result of a relatively abrupt change rather than a process of continuous development ... I regard it as an unanswered question.
Of course, for a Christian — who is not systematically skeptical, à la Hume — the question is answered by the belief that the essence of this "process" is described in the Bible, and that the author of this "process" is God, a Personal God ...
[amcolph]
[MdS] I see no other possibility, unless someone comes up with a plausible "evolutionary path".
Why must it be evolutionary? [d] It could be a psychological phenomena with an environmental cause. [e] It could even be divine intervention.
[d] Of course, you would have to explain, first, how brute matter is ... er ... eligible for the "emergence" of "psychological phenomena" ...
[e] Yeah, I take the Bible seriously (albeit NOT literally) and go for this one ...
MdS
Revelation is above, not against Reason
“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
LOL! More projection! I most certainly did NOT "ask for ... judgment" ...
You certainly did. And even if you don't, so what?
... and, anyway, and once again, the lady's "judgment" is reduced to a gratuitous (and personal) comment ...
No, it isn't. Your argument has enormous holes a Mack truck can be driven through--assuming a Mack truck can be "driven" through air.
[a] It is for the the lady to explain what she means by "untained ["not tarnished, contaminated, or polluted"] by the mind", referred to "analytical (or "pure") reason".
Is the mind a noumenon or phenomenon?
As for "how you know of it", sorry, she will have to familiarize herself with some (good) handbook on the fundamentals of philosophy. I have no time to feed her the basics.
I don't need any "basics" (least of all fed by you.) Just answer the question.
As for the relationship between reason and perceptions, with Kant, reason organizes "raw" perceptions through what are usually called transcendental "categories", organized in "schemes". Again, I have no time to feed her the basics.
I don't need the "basics" (again, least of all fed by you.) So in Kant's metaphysic (which, btw, you deny is an appropriate means to episteme and claim this is Kant's position as well--leaving off, for now that additional absurdity as he was a Professor of Logic and Metaphysics), are Kant's "categories" and "schemes" noumena or phenomena?
[b] For the umpteenth time, to insist in affirming that Kant would have had/developped his own "metaphysical sistem" is such a gross, ignorantclaim, that I cannot be bothered to confute it.
And yet you provide that metaphysical system above. Talk about "gross" "ignorance." Add illogical to yourself.
This should be sufficient ...
“... (... yes, at the risk of seeming to stereotype), women--as a whole--generally aren't all that interested in "dinosaurs." Neither, really, is Biology.
Therefore, I'm waiting for 57 to comment here.
(...)
Well let's see what 57 has and/or MMarcoe (and/or anyone else) and go where the evidence leads.
... and no, no "mis...understanding" ... whatever the lady may protest to the contrary ...
You do know that paleontology isn't the sum total of episteme? Or no? Further, you do realize you're equivocating on episteme? Or no?
I leave it for the lady to explain what she means by "nominal worth".
Don't you know? You're a nominalist, supposedly.
As for the adjective "real" in the expression "real worth" I suspect that the lady is not aware that realismU, as one of the possible answers to the problem of universals, is a specialized, "technical" philosophical word, and means something quite different from realismP, that is "the belief that reality exists independently of observers".
I am perfectly aware of that.
The problem here is you aren't aware of any of the concepts you pretend to be aware of and further, in fact, approriate as your own.
btw, you think just describing man means you're done here? You do realize this is a discussion about the Incarnation?
We need NEITHER a realist definition of the "category man" NOR a realist definition of the "category God" to affirm that Jesus was (still is, BTW ...) the Incarnation of God's eternal Word/Logos, the God-man.
Essentially, all we need is to take seriously (and literally) Luke 1:35 ...
... of course without trying to "reason away" the mystery and the miracle ...
Flatus voci.
The lady is simply parrotting mininglessly Kant's lexicon, here ...
On the total contrary.
Anyway, contrary to the lady's topsy-turvy approach, it is phenomena that are "processed" by reason through its categories.
This "non-metaphysical system" of categories?
Anyway, when those phenomena are "processed" what are they?
Noumena, contrary to Plato's hyper-realist delusion, in particular the delusion that "ideal forms" would be "intuitively perceived", remain inaccessible per se to human mind.
And, again, are the aforementioned "faculties" of "reason", "freedom" and "will" noumena or phenomena?
What "kind"?
Who knows?
The lady is invited to put whatever she (thinks she) is referring to in the form of "affirming the consequent" ...
MdS
I certainly have no time after 1,000's of posts on this topic exchanged between you and me to feed you the basics once again to make it 1,001.
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
LOL! More projection! I most certainly did NOT "ask for ... judgment" ...
[a] You certainly did. [b] And even if you don't, so what?
[MdS]... and, anyway, and once again, the lady's "judgment" is reduced to a gratuitous (and personal) comment ...
No, it isn't. Your argument has enormous holes a Mack truck can be driven through--assuming a Mack truck can be "driven" through air.
Doesn't Adelphe ever feel sick of her empty and gratuitous (and personal) comments, of her ad hominems, nay ad hominemsabusive? [#1]
[MdS] It is for the the lady to explain what she means by "untainted ["not tarnished, contaminated, or polluted"] by the mind", referred to "analytical (or "pure") reason".
Is the mind a noumenon or phenomenon?
This question has got nothing to do with her previous question (whatever she may claim to the contrary). And, once again, it is for her to explain what she means by "untainted by the mind", referred to "analytical (or "pure") reason". So far, the expression is spectacularlysenseless ...
[MdS] As for "how you know of it", sorry, she will have to familiarize herself with some (good) handbook on the fundamentals of philosophy. I have no time to feed her the basics.
I don't need any "basics" (least of all fed by you.) Just answer the question.
Is Adelphe claiming that, unless one is a "realist universalist", one is not authorized to speak of mind? [:pathetic:]
[MdS] As for the relationship between reason and perceptions, with Kant, reason organizes "raw" perceptions through what are usually called transcendental "categories", organized in "schemes". Again, I have no time to feed her the basics.
I don't need the "basics" (again, least of all fed by you.) So in Kant's metaphysic (which, btw, you deny is an appropriate means to episteme and claim this is Kant's position as well--leaving off, for now that additional absurdity as he was a Professor of Logic and Metaphysics), are Kant's "categories" and "schemes" noumena or phenomena?
LOL! What amusing aping-parroting of Kant's terminology!
[MdS] For the umpteenth time, to insist in affirming that Kant would have had/developed his own "metaphysical system" is such a gross, ignorantclaim, that I cannot be bothered to confute it.
And yet you provide that metaphysical system above. Talk about "gross" "ignorance." Add illogical to yourself.
Adelphe only confirms her grossignorance ...
[MdS] This should be sufficient ...
“... (... yes, at the risk of seeming to stereotype), women--as a whole--generally aren't all that interested in "dinosaurs." Neither, really, is Biology.
Therefore, I'm waiting for 57 to comment here.
(...)
Well let's see what 57 has and/or MMarcoe (and/or anyone else) and go where the evidence leads.
... and no, no "mis...understanding" ... whatever the lady may protest to the contrary ...
You do know that paleontology isn't the sum total of episteme? Or no? Further, you do realize you're equivocating on episteme? Or no?
LOL! What have Adelphe's questions got to do with ... the price of tea in China ... nay, with anything at all?
The above is sufficient evidence that, when asked the straightforward question ...
“So where is the scientific, geological evidence of "dinos and humans coexisting"?” [thread "Bible and Dinosaurs", MdS, #65]
... Adelphe shied away behind some "I'm waiting for 57 to comment here", "let's see what 57 has and/or MMarcoe" ...
[MdS] I leave it for the lady to explain what she means by "nominal worth".
Don't you know? You're a nominalist, supposedly.
The only case in which I would use the expression "nominal worth" is for banknotes, or similar. I leave it for Adelphe to explain what other meaning she would attach to the expression ...
[MdS] As for the adjective "real" in the expression "real worth" I suspect that the lady is not aware that realismU, as one of the possible answers to the problem of universals, is a specialized, "technical" philosophical word, and means something quite different from realismP, that is "the belief that reality exists independently of observers".
I am perfectly aware of that.
Then hers was a perfectly sillyquestion ...
The problem here is you aren't aware of any of the concepts you pretend to be aware of and further, in fact, appropriate as your own.
Doesn't Adelphe ever feel sick of her empty and gratuitous (and personal) comments, of her ad hominems, nay ad hominemsabusive? [#2]
[MdS] We need NEITHER a realist definition of the "category man" NOR a realist definition of the "category God" to affirm that Jesus was (still is, BTW ...) the Incarnation of God's eternal Word/Logos, the God-man.
Essentially, all we need is to take seriously (and literally) Luke 1:35 ...
... of course without trying to "reason away" the mystery and the miracle ...
Flatus voci.
First, the correct Latin expression is flatus vocis, with an "s".
Second, it is the epitome of irony to hear a (self-proclamed) "Christian" liquidate as "a mere name, word, or sound without a corresponding objective reality —used by the nominalists of universals" the appeal to the "mystery and the miracle" of the Incarnation that we find, untainted by any heathen-philosophical superstructure, in the NT, in Luke 1:35 ...
[MdS] ... contrary to the lady's topsy-turvy approach, it is phenomena that are "processed" by reason through its categories.
This "non-metaphysical system" of categories?
Correct. A category, in Kant's philosophy, is a "pure concept of the understanding".
Anyway, when those phenomena are "processed" what are they?
Organized perceptions.
[MdS] Noumena, contrary to Plato's hyper-realist delusion, in particular the delusion that "ideal forms" would be "intuitively perceived", remain inaccessible per se to human mind.
And, again, are the aforementioned "faculties" of "reason", "freedom" and "will" noumena or phenomena?
They are postulates of practical reason.
[MdS] The lady is invited to put whatever she (thinks she) is referring to in the form of "affirming the consequent" ...
I certainly have no time after 1,000's of posts on this topic exchanged between you and me to feed you the basics once again to make it 1,001.
Incapable to comply with this simple request, Adelphe, with the above, is simply covering her 1,001thbluff...
“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
