Oops: I never finished my post about the failure of theology…

Lol. OK so the first sentence of her review is: and this may be a paraphrase : it is generally recognized that theology has failed.

I’m not gonna look back to it again but it says something very close to that yeah pretty much everyone knows by now that theology has failed.

Wtf. Is my short answer. Who is generally recognizing this, how many people are recognizing this? and I think it’s a bunch of theoretical nonsense if you ask me. 😄lol

I swear; it must be based in like five people sitting in a room with painted windows pondering what everyone else thinks.

“…it is generally agreed by those who agree..”

—that is the perfect example of the Postmodern religion asserting its intellectual priority.

It is such an overreaching presumption and general intellectual pomposity to make that statement.

Check please.

And the thing is is you can’t argue with them, because they will pull out all this proof that really is no proof except that they have decided it’s proof. The day of the great intellectual religion of the logos. Oh! But it’s not the logos because here I am intellectually going to define to you how the logos only exists with in a discursive definition of religious context, and what we are talking about right now has nothing to do with the logos because I’m going to define my discourse differently to say that I am not worshiping the logos in my intellectual arrogance.

It’s the Sokal Hoax all over again but they have learned how to disguise it better.

—that is; in a way.

NWow if this is the first post that you’ve read of mine, then you should realize that I’m not proposing that everyone should go out and pick their religion of choice.

But what I am proposing is that these arrogant bastard’s and Bastreses Are themselves proposing a religious cosmology. It is such a flaunting of postmodern ignorance of theory to distance themselves from their own religious beliefs through their intellectualism.

Philosophy is never for the present it’s always for the distant future in which the philosopher is not alive.

The philosophy of the present, is religious cosmology. That is just plain fact, as my book The Philosophical Hack, begins to describe.

And so I should stop calling them idiots so much I should call them very smart, these clerics of the postmodern religion.

But the book does seem interesting and so I’ll probably read it.

That’s all that matters anyway.s

I’m done.

Note: I should recognize that what we could call a Speculative-Continental line indeed has come across the issue I treat; that is indeed where the “theology-that-has-failed” comes from. But the issue is exactly that they could propose that such theology has failed. My point: This kind of theology cannot fail. Rather, it can only be denied.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

19 thoughts on “Oops: I never finished my post about the failure of theology…”

  1. Besides, theology is irrational.. as a philosophy teacher myself I can tell u that theology is one of a very bizarre discipline to study.. I remember a question in an article I read a while ago: the hylemorphic bodies of angels! Ok totally crazy!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am considering how everyday reality is actually informed as a religion. That the categories that we use to have ‘reality’ behave, as function, as a religious structure. So my point as to this link is that the philosophers who notice this failure of ‘theology’ are really indicating how thier own ‘religion’ is in fact a religious dogma, albeit called philosophy.

      The difference is in realizing that at no time were any humanity ignorant of any actual universe, as though there is something functioning underneath human awareness or cognition. Rather, at all times Consciousness is informing human beings to thier reality through a religious function; presenting structured realities that arise in certain conditions of belief, ethics and offense, all the way up and all the way down, including “pure sense” data such as a bee sting, taste and sight. Consciousness includes as it structures what is true from false at every juncture.


      1. But philosophy as the exercise of critical thinking is no way dogmatism since one learns how to think something and its opposite. The freedom of multiple answers/way of thinking should be and should remain philosophy at its core..
        Unfortunately sometimes there is a tendency to make it a dogma which is death to any discipline that requires thinking


      2. I guess spirit must fly. Lol

        suppose I bring the Philosophical Quetion to the act of thinking, and turn the “how” (epistemology) from a mechanical question to a logistical question. How do we know? And so. What is thought or thinking? And then to what purpose is philosophy (thus), as a mechanical assumption, complicit?


      3. Philosophy would give a meaning. Religion would too but based on faith and God who is the only meaning. Whereas science gives answers but not a meaning. This is why religion is stronger then science and philosophy put together


      1. Hyle= matter; morphic= form… the question was: what is the hylemorphic angels bodies made of? Besides the str8 answer that they simply don’t exist in the way portray them, it should be spirit in a human form with wings.. but again this is completely illogical.. so the whole question is illogical too

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I am not sure, though, that adherence to logic necessarily achieves some sort of universally neutral truth. Logic is a tool; what the use of the tool achieves is really arbitrary, so far as to truth. One of the things I question about the category, or the domain that philosophy is involved with, is how categorically different elements of thought R brought together unknowingly, assumed in the process of thought it self such that the results of thought (for example, in the assumption thought/logic/truth) appear to be giving us something that is universally true . That particular coordination thought – logic – truth appears to the thinker often to be conveying some thing that is true no matter what, universally across the whole field of some basic and neutral ground of existence . but I wonder about that.


      3. For sure logic can’t explain everything. Therefore some philosophers, such as Nietzsche, criticised logic and rationality and opened the way to interpretation and relativity of truth


      4. Logic. Is a tool. Take for example a hammer. What is a hammer used for? Is there a specific use? Can a hammer be only used for one task? The things that I create or build, that I use a hammer to build, are they all the same? Are all houses the same as tables?


      5. It is a tool as you said but it can not be used for everything. Can’t use it in art although classical symphonies are mathematical


      6. Sure. I understand that. Playing music and using math does not constitute nor propose any “truth” of things either; they do not discriminate, I think. Like you suggest.

        I am suggesting, though, that everywhere else human beings are indeed involved in establishing what is true. And then, that logic does not give us true thing necessarily; it is a method for processing information. So, I ask how is religion related to “reality” say. How is something “religious” and not so true, compared to “philosophy”, say, that tells us “actually” true thing?


      7. Maybe, and i do say “maybe”, there is a whole truth out there that is beyond our understanding? And that religion is the only way to know it ? The heart can be a way to truth.. but in this case, people are able to know it without being in a certain religion!


      8. Under the condition that maybe the heart can lead the way to something that the mind can’t know/understand..
        I am aware that this is all a speculation but again who knows


      9. That is a quite broad concept of knowledge, for sure.

        Perhaps, a heart can know things just like an ear can know things particular to ear-knowledge? Or a skin-knowledge can know heat?


        I am not sure, though, that I would call those “knowing”, personally. I do say, though, for example, “emotion has content”, but then I think I use ‘knowledge’ specifically as having to do with lanaguage, and language having to do with communication. A particular lineage, I suppose. Even as there is communication that occurs without speaking or writing..

        Hmmm. Thx. What knowledge occurs outside of knowing, I guess is what you are answering.

        Maybe it matters The context.
        I guess in my mind in the context of philosophy, knowledge refers to the use of words to communicate.

        Whereas I don’t think of philosophy in that very large sense of a given activity called thinking.


      10. To me, and I refer to Gilles Deleuze’s definition of philosophy: the creation of concepts. Therefore we don’t need philosophy to think because we can think without it. But all the realms of thinking can be conceptualized and that’s the role of philosophy. That’s why I used the concept of knowledge outside the rational and scientific frame to it to point out that maybe the human can’t rationally know everything whereas the heart/affects can!


      11. Btw: It appears that you are using your mind very well and that your ideas are indeed valid, and you are allowing me to ponder and reconsider some things.

        I feel like, perhaps, you do not have to qualify what you’re saying with “who can really know”.

        I myself tend to use qualifying words which express a certain hesitancy, such as “perhaps“, “maybe“.. and I think we are both using them in the same way, which is to say, in the effort to try not to offend the person we’re talking to. Maybe 😆

        I use the terms “perhaps, maybe“ tomcover my ass, in one sense, and to model a certain opening to discussion, but I think also to defer to the potential for philosophers to be self-righteous. So I use ssuch qualifying words to maintain an opening to draw out from these “quite self aggrandizing thinkers” what they really think. Because I found more than once that when I actually try to address what is going philosophically, they will quickly recourse back into what I call philosophical dogmatic texts, shut down and start to throw personal insults about how I don’t know what I’m talking about. But to me that just means that they are failing to really engage philosophically what is occurring in their efforts of philosophy.

        It appears to me that you are engaging. And indeed with a valid and substantial points. So thank you very much.


      12. Thank you to you because I am typing and thinking at the same time as if i was talking to you, as if you were in front of me.. hence the “maybe” and the “perhaps”, because really nobody can give one straight answer to these questions. And whoever does it, he/she is a dogmatic person.. and you are right, there are many of them in philosophy unfortunately


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s