Christian Apologetics and Predication
I enjoyed this essay of Christian apologetics. It makes a good point as to predication. In short, what he means by predication is that which enjoins reason to reality. ￼￼ He is making the argument that one either predicates this end situation upon man himself or God.
Aside from the strictly Christian terms, I think this is really the case at hand. However, the issue that I have with this Christian apologetic￼￼￼ is in using no different means than that of any other argument. I disagree with his sentiment and his strict argument. ￼The reason why it falls into the category of Christian apologetics is because ultimately he is making the argument that all predication has to be founded in God and not in human beings.
My point is that I could just as easily make an argument why it should be founded in human beings themselves.
So really we’ve just come to a stalemate. Because, what we are really dealing with here is the power of argument to convince or persuade, and then ultimately a decision upon what one wants to believe. In short the Christian apologetics really come down to whether or not one believes in God as the end of predication, or whether one believes that human beings are￼.￼￼￼￼￼
Decision and Denial
The significant feature of predication should be understood as involved with the intention through which the content of discourses manifest.
I will go out on a limb here To say that the issue of predication necessarily reduces to two Possibilities.￼ The issue around significance has to do not only with what we are predicating the idea of reason and reality upon, but indeed upon the predication by which we come to the conclusion that it must be ￼of man or God. ￼
For The significance of which I speak Is that such a choice is already predicated upon man. And this is to say that “Man or a God” is predicated upon reason, and that’s what we are really asking into philosophically but also apologetically with reference to religion: from where does reason find itself.
Reason is left exempt from the problem because it is assumed.
It is the predicate upon which not only the posing of the question but the possibility of choices to answer the question reside. Reason itself is never in question; rather, it assumes that reason is a ‘one thing’ that itself addresses, but as well, that which is left out if the debate.
Reason must be established either through Mans ability or through God￼￼￼￼￼￼￼. In other words, the question itself is redundant. In short it merely says that reason posits choice, that ultimately we only have two choices — and you better make the right one￼!
￼God and Truth
I am going to go out on another limb here. I’m going to assume that what is intended in the argument for predication upon God, is in actuality something which is “not God”. What I mean by this is that ultimately if I say or argue that the end of predication is God, I have asked another question implicitly about the end of predication that is God. In other words, what is God predicated upon?
So my answer must be that there is no difference between the Christian apologist and what I call the conventional Philosopher. Both are ultimately assuming that reason can find itself as a predicate, and this is exactly Kant’s idealism, exactly his point of the synthetical a priori.
In a very Lyotardian manner, The terms that we are using to set up reasonable arguments to find some ultimate end of predication, to come to some sort of conclusion about reality and about our existence, this particular manner that supposes to reduce to something that falls out of predication or somehow find some term that identifies that which is not predicated, which is to say, not defined, is ultimately a contradiction in terms.￼
The question of orientation upon things thus falls to our orientation upon the terms themselves, that is, The truth that is supposed to be indicated by the terms that is never found in the content of definition nor the intension inherent the argument.
Yet where philosophy or Christian apologetics find this rhetoric to be indicating nothing, (Reason or God) thereby have we found a particular orientation upon things. It is not that we have found something absolutely positive against a defined negativity, a defined absence. Rather, it is that we have found where one particular method of organizing, discussing, and presenting Reality has failed…
…yet where reason yet endures and persists, albeit in truth.￼ Truth thus can be spoken about, defined, delineated and yet not be required to answer to conventional philosophies reliance upon a singular definitional￼ Foundation for everything￼ that can exist rationally, which is to say, that singular epistemological universe where we have a choice upon what we want to believe. ￼
A little video for some perspective.
Intelligence !! That, is the question.
I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. ￼
That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.
However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.
And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.
The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy
The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.
I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol
What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no sense￼.lol
And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol
I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.
Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?
It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.
I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them,￼￼￼￼ Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.
It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.
I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.
The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes
This is why I say that ethics is not something that￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!
Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. ￼￼
￼￼￼If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation￼, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.
￼￼￼￼ For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. ￼￼
Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one￼.
We Have Never Been Modern
We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern. ￼￼ specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.
For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. ￼
The Two Routes, again
So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.
However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.
The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.
Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation￼,￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.
￼ Disgusting, right￼?
What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?
Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.
Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x
Please leave your answer in the comments below.
The moment of enlightenment is only initially an awareness of being. After that moment it is an awareness of how so few are aware. The real issue of enlightenment has to do with what comes after.
When we understand Christ in its proper scope, we see that ‘enlightenment’ is the attempt by the individual to uphold and maintain It as a prolonged state of being. The way it is maintained Is through the justification of the offense.
The Christ moment, and the ideal of enlightenment, is a moment of being conscious that when come upon represents a moment of decisive significance.
In this moment, the awesomeness and apprehensive feeling of dread might bring the individual to fall back into its history to thereby join and retain the consistency of what they know and knew to that state of fear and trembling. The coupling of the Christ moment with the fall back (revolt) into the fear of the awesomeness of the tremendous mystery that is come upon in that moment, yields righteousness, what some could call “ego inflation”. Enlightenment is the form of consciousness understanding itself and its view as something that everyone else is supposed to likewise know.
On The other hand, when the Christ moment, it’s awesomeness and the accompanying state of fear and trembling, is come upon in curiosity, then the motion is one of compassion instead of righteousness. For the self, it continues the motion of curiosity and acceptance, but this self is not the primary aim. The motion is into otherness. Difference.
For, instead of understanding how intellectually or ethically wrong and spiritually poor everyone is around, such that they need to be educated into the righteousness of proper knowledge, The Christ moment fades into just one moment in the potential of human consciousness. Enlightenment disappears as some thing that was never to be found. The meaning of awareness changes.
The awareness that remains is not enlightened awareness, neither is it Christ being; rather it is a true human compassion for those people Who have come upon and yet not followed through such a moment.
It is a true understanding of what it is to be human.
An object oriented journey through the Gospels.
by Gabriele Ottaviani Graham Harman is the author of OOO: Convenzionali is so glad to interview him for you. What are anthropocene and …
—-Harman is such a freak!! lol.
Just look at that picture. 🐮
Live-blogging reading Benjamin Bratton’s THE REVENGE OF THE REAL. 1) TESTABILITY The preface begins with a concern for testability. For Bratton the …
The news of the sad death of Lauren Berlant has been all over social media, with many heartfelt tributes to the impact of their work. I won’t try to …
This is a philosophical contemplation of mental health, so it’s going to be a little longer than just a tip.
Anxiety is probably the most foundational element of mental health. As the early investigators into psychic and mental phenomenon noted, there are really only two adverse mental phenomenon that we are really concerned with: to use somewhat archaic terms, we have neurosis and psychosis.
In order to give context to this mental health contemplation today, we need to understand these two basic principles; then we will get into the more contemporaneously relevant third issue next post.
Neurosis, very basically thinking, is anxiety. it refers to conditions as, what Sigmund Freud termed, “amicable to the couch”. Aside from the more contemporary conflations of neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology, it is from the simple statement that pretty much every approach to psychotherapy stems. It is the principle which basically says that the client has the solution. We as counselors are really helping the person in their process of coming to their own solution. The couch, in this frame, was the actual couch that a patient would come in for Freud and others, and lay down and start talking, basically in free association, with little or no intervention or prompt from Freud or the psychoanalyst.
Now, this might be kind of a disillusionment for many people who want to go to the psychologist and get their mental disorders fixed; I would say that this kind displacement, where I am trying to get “fixed”, is merely a contemporary and modern phenomenon of mental health, and behaves more like a religious rite than it does behave towards any true recognition of what we’re actually dealing with. Hence, ironically, the idea that the problem is the problem. But that is another conversation to have.
Psychosis, on the other hand, names those that Freud and others noted who were ‘not amicable to the couch’. What he meant by this is that he encountered certain patients which no amount of talking would help alleviate the issue they are Attempting to deal with.
In our more contemporary terms, “Amicable to the couch” as they talked about it then is really what we call an ability to “reality check”. People who are psychotic do not have an ability to test themselves, thier perceptions and thoughts, against reality. The term “schizophrenia” Was an early term Developed by early investigators to account for persistent acute psychosis, to indicate that there was something structurally, physically abnormal about this persons brain. Early neurologist believed that all forms of mental abnormality are reflecting a structural physical abnormality of the brain. That the structure of the brain is the cause of all mental phenomena.
While there are some correlations in this structural physical situation to mental health issues, not all mental health issues can be reduced to one’s neural structure or as we like to talk about nowadays, the chemistry. A more enlightened and current view is that while there may be a propensity involved in the structure of neural tissue to yield various mental health ailments, more likely it is the environment which activates such abnormality or dysfunction. However, this is to shed light upon the difference between psychosis and neurosis; The early neurologists and their Scientific congregants were using psychotic patients in order to argue back that neurotic patients have likewise a structural physical chemical aberration in their brain.
The point that I am making is that we cannot be sure what is the actual “cause”. Classical neurology, as indeed anachronistic approaches to mental health still advocate and it’s absolute form, Propose that all cause of mental issues is always neural structure. The issue nowadays is no one can be really sure if understanding this cause actually helps us to a solution.
What we find when we actually look honestly and openly at what is occurring, as opposed to relying upon the “historical and traditional theories”, Is that what is normal and abnormal so far is neuroses does not fit neatly into the model which finds structural differences between psychotic patients and “normal”. The truth of the matter is that there is this huge gray area — no pun intended, or maybe there is! — that the Nuro chemical model of mental dysfunction is merely promoting upon an exploiting. The Nuro chemical model of mental disorder as applied to the traditional neurotic is not taking account of the facts. It is merely drawing upon a theory and imposing that upon what they speculate could be the case. Such practitioners “see“ what the theory dictates rather than having what they see shape their theory.
One could argue that the main problem involved in our current state of mental health is the Borderline.
The idea of a borderline personality disorder comes out of the initial polemical situating of mental health issues. This is to say, neurotics can find their solution through their own process facilitated by someone who is skilled in allowing for that process. Whereas psychotics, and it’s classical sense, cannot find their own solution through this kind of self process.
The notion of a borderline personality was derived because it seemed like there were some people that would come in who appeared neurotic, Yet the process of their self reflection Appeared to only work sometimes, at that, not very well.
Ponder: what of these three categories would you say you fall into?
More in a bit….