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. 


The Great Divide: Was The Handmaiden’s Tale Nonfiction?

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

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

Commenting on Medieval storytellers


The 12th century was arguably the most ‘storytelling’ century of the medieval period. If the Dark Ages – which were not dark at all – were centuries …

Medieval storytellers


I marvel at history and it’s commentaries.

I love this guys blog; he’s always got really interesting stuff about the middle ages and books and stuff like that.

Today I was once again struck by the huge swath of time, say the 11th or 12th centuries, that he generalizes to say that writers authors told a lot of stories.

It is interesting to me that a short two page essay, for example his post, could have anything to say that was remotely accurate about the “eleventh and 12th centuries of Europe”.

This goes to a very philosophical heart in me, One that just appears now and again, like a did today.

Think about your life. In fact, think about just the past month of your life, say. Think about all the information, all the experience you’ve had, the perception and conception of time, how a month can seem like it takes forever to pass, and yet once it passes it seems very quick. Think about all the thoughts you had about the world and all the events that were going on just in your hometown or the city in which you live. Think about all the multitudinous situations that arise every moment even three blocks from your place of living.

Think about how difficult it would be to summarize what happened this last month, just even in your own personal life, think about what happened at work, think about what happened in your local businesses, in your city news, in your state or country, in your nation. Think about what happened at the party that was at your local college fraternity house.

Think about what sense is being made when I go to describe any one of those situations. How accurate that description is.

Now think about I’m extending from maybe a couple hours out to only a month. The accuracy of any of my descriptions, whether it be merely today, the past week or even the month, is exponentially distorted even within one hour of description. Let alone if I try to describe or summarize what happened in the past month.

As well, i submit, I would say that there is no difference in the capacity for description between what I say happened merely in this past hour, or this past month. Whether I am describing the situation of walking my dog around the paths and open space and sidewalks around my house, or whether I am attempting to describe or summarize the events of that same half hour on any street in my city.

Consider The capacity in each description is exactly the same. There is not something “local” to my description of me walking my dog, and then some thing that is more extensive in my describing what is happening on any city block in Lodo during the same period of time. There is exactly the same amount Of information being condensed, there is exactly the same amount of information being conveyed, there is exactly the same extent which is being communicated. There is neither more nor less information in my summary and description of the past 10 feet that I have walked with my dog, then there is of my summary and description of what is happening in all the bars in downtown Denver off of Colfax.

Consider how you might understand the various capacities and extents automatically and naturally. As well, consider by what standards are you being able to assess and perhaps rebut the situation that I am describing in this post.

Now contemplate how this linked post is supposing to describe a situation of 1000 years ago. Ponder that he is summarizing and describing a situation that occurred over some 150 years.

I for one cannot even describe with any amount of accurancy what happened in my own life of the past 5 years, let alone a whole continent over 150 years.

What exactly is being communicated. What is truly happening?

Comment on “We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words “intersectionality” or “intersectional” said out loud at least 20 …

“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

—- Aaaand my comment:

The nature of society as an imagined symbolic fantasy is to commandeer and distort for the sake of maintaing the known (real) universe.

Intersectionality, regardless of who puts forth the ‘original’ definition, is the indivisible remaider” where the imagined world coalesces around symbols.

All objects constitute points of origin and markings of relation to other objects. Intersectionality, as a reductionary descriptor for social relations, is a “weighted” object of social concern: It grants the symbol, as a point of deconstruction, or the fantasy, as a ‘vanishing point’ or ‘master signifier’ of the oppressing reality.

The True issue presented by this post is: Will we be permitted to see how our reckoning of change, itself is changed by the force of this argument that is imvolved in real social change?

Colonialization or Meme of Popular Cohesion

Colonization? Whiteness? These have become the vanishing mediators for the present existential motion. It is not necessarily that “white people” are commandeering what is otherwise authentic and particular to people of color; it is more that these terms have become the object around which reality presently or under certain circumstances manifests.

Recently there has been developing around race relations, critical race theory etc., the idea that there can be an ideology, for Black people, for example, that can be distinctly and totally separated from that of the white colonizer. Tommy Curry is one of these who tend to be idealistic about social relation and law.

While I definitely concur with the philosophical notion as it resonnates a similar notion that I have developed around the two routes, when applied in the social sphere, my question would be how are we even communicating this other ideological foundation if there isn’t an underlying ideological foundation through which the two cultures would be interacting?

I feel that Many critical and racial theorist and Philosopher’s are beginning to see through this kind of idealism. Yes, it’s a good discourse to get people to think about what’s actually occurring, but if you stand by that idealistic utopian version of the potential involved with being human, I hate to say it, what has happened is that you are trying to colonize social reality by saying that you know something more which arises outside of our ability to communicate. In this sense, Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, the issue of “whiteness” is not so much about the color of one’s skin, but how individual human beings show up within a framework, themselves intersected by symbols and semantic fantasies in this sense, and Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, As some critical race efforts will agree with, whiteness is some thing that we are all involved with in order to have any identity at all. 

Reality and the two routes

This really is the issue of the two routes that I talk about . With everything positioned in reality, there is some thing that withdraws from relation. but also, that content that withdraws arises in a condition through which communication does take place, perhaps in a different epistemological environment. This is to say, I might be drawing a polemic between ideology and epistemology. 

For, when we began to talk about what knowledge actually is, and if we agree that we are all human beings communicating with each other in some cents, then this idea that there is whiteness and blackness that are ultimately unreconcilable as a social feature, it’s really depending upon the same idealistic notion of a priori reason That realists, speculative or not, are pulling apart. If we want to call this “white Philosophy.” then that’s fine. However, I would offer the challenge of how one would communicate to anyone at all an alternative version of knowledge involved with the human being without at some point resorting to, again, some underlying “big reason”. And that’s my And other philosophers point; Namely, some thing with draws. Some thing tends to always be underneath, which Graham Harmon calls “undermining”, or something that is out of reach above us, what he calls “over mining”.  it seems that whiteness, blackness, and colonialization is an inherent part of being human in the modern world; and indeed, here we are dealing with it. It is not wrong, it is just the particular coordination of knowledge through which Real objects come into being an allow for idealized intersectionality. 

However, where I think my discussion of the two routes is significant, is the admitting that this is the case despite what we might want to argue. As I say, it is a true situation that doesn’t depend on what we argue about it. 


the Modern Real Method

I keep coming back to what I see as a basic and fundamental issue in philosophy.

Why must we reference others to support the veracity of a proposal ?

I mean this in a de facto sense, not de jure. For, of course most modern philosophers we know of make implicit to thier argument the necessity for reference to other authors.

My question is: Why?

Why is Plato and Aristotle and whoever is ‘basic’ not required to reference for thier proposals to have veracity ? And yet no one currently is allowed to propose truths in the same way?

Why is no appeal to truth permitted to thought?

Any ideas?

Normativity and critical race theory

 The renowned and infamous critical social theorist and Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Develops a notion somewhere in one of his books about the significant issue of reality in the context of philosophy is not simply change, but a change in how we are able to reckon what change is– and whether or not we can notice this kind of change.

This is all I’m gonna say right here about this post of this black person denouncing critical race theory.

I will let the reader Come upon the truth of this real development herself.

With one hint: What else supplies normalcy if it isn’t that which guides us to what is normal?

To Deconstruct the term “normal” to then say that the term does not identify anything that actually exists is merely to say that the term itself, ie normal, is identifying the very operation through which deconstruction is operating.  

Juneteenth. The Issue of the Two: Reality and Truth

The United States’ Second Independence Day!

 Ive heard opinions that while this moment should be officially recognized, we should’ve named it something different because it’ll confuse everyone having two independence days.

I think it’s fabulous. Yes, fabulous in that we are recognizing a significant truth in the real history of this country, but also that there are Two recognitions that ultimately inform the truth of the actual situation.

This resonates so incredibly well with my philosophical notion of the Two Routes upon objects.

In thier individual truths, they cannot reduce to the other in fact. They can only do so in real reductive argument.

Yet, aside from that method of arguing, one always excludes the other, while the other includes the exclusion. They both, as real non philosophical aspects, constitute the truth of the situation.

The Reposting Human Consciousness Post

This article provides some insight on how and why the explanation of human consciousness might be the reason for a paradigm shift of science away …

Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism

—- He has some really good extrapolated points.

I think the shorter version of what he is saying, so far as ‘the whole of correlations do not a mind make’, I think concerns my hard problem of consciousness as distinguished from Chalmers hard problem; Chalmers hard problem I think it’s just a very difficult problem, and not hard in the sense of the word that we understand hard beyond the meaning that is “very difficult”. My Hard Problem of consciousness actually indicates a significance of the problem of consciousnes that must be come to terms with before any other problem of consciousnessness has any skin in the game. Without addressing my Hard Problem, the rest become merely an idealized word game.

I keep saying it here in there in various posts of mine, but here it is again:

The hard problem of consciousness is that there is no way to absolutely be convinced that someone else’s brain has anything to do with one’s own consciousness, or consciousness whether or not it is mine or someone else’s. That is, I am only able to be convinced because I’m already convinced.

In other words, it is merely that I believe that I have a brain in which my consciousness resides and that when I look at another human being with a brain, what they find out goes on there, actually has to do with my consciousness.

It may, but then does it really have to do with a brain ? and then as well, does it have to do with my brain (do I have a brain)?

These are the hard questions because Typically They are answered with answers that have wiggle room, for a word, that are soft answers. 

We love soft questions and soft answers because it never requires us to really think, it never requires us to really reflect upon what is actually occurring. On The contrary, it only requires of us to a stay one dimensional, that is to say, non-reflective. we get to have opinions, we get to argue all sorts of great ideas. It’s all really interesting.

There is plenty that people could say to convince me through various proofs that working on someone else’s brain, or doing anything to someone else’s brain has to do with my brain and by extension my consciousness, but the only way that I could understand the equation is to already believe that it is the case.

In other words, I have to already understand that there is a correlation between my consciousness and someone else’s brain that has to do with consciousness.

This hard problem that I am elaborating upon is no different than this authors post of the correlation between electrical activity in one’s brain, say, and consciousness itself.

I would also beg to differ in his use of the idea of “materialism”. For Sure I know what he’s talking about when he refers to materialism, but this materialism he refers to, and then also references it to a true Philosophy, (even as I tend to agree with his definition of philosophy) it’s just one type of materialism, and in fact, it is an “Old materialism”. That is, the “new materialism” is of a different sort.

However, in so much as the correlation pointed out by my hard problem of consciousness is no different than the correlation he makes note of between brain activity and consciousness itself, I would then have to point to that problem in which he is inherently involved with is in fact an “old” materialistic problem.

But I like his argument so far is one adheres to the old version of materialism. 


Object Orientation, Tool Being, and Kierkegaard

Trying to link this to the podcast. Just click the link, I guess? Its not embedding very well.
Podcast episode cover art–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1–Tool-Being-and-Kierkegaard-eutue1
The Object of the Subject

Fox Be Defunded

Last week, the NAACP wrote a letter to the NFL making a request for the good of humanity: stop giving money to fucking Fox News. Okay, that wasn’t their exact phrasing, but it captures the spirit…
— Read on

—- Interesting.

I wonder if the United States at least will be able to pull out of the downward spiral news based from idealisms, and get back to news about actual events and issues that surround those events.

I feel like this is what the author is calling for, I feel like this is what Fox News is being indicted for: Fox News is the reflection of a kind of human being which views the world through their myopic idealism, ironically, what Philosophy. has been making arguments about for the past 200 and some years, and which the newer “realist philosophy” rebut as a methodology.

Idealism is where the individual is understood as sacrosanct. It is correspondent with the ideal of phenomenalism. And uses post modern deconstructivism as a methodological firewall.

This approach upon reality understands the human being as a generator of ideas, and that these ideas are given to the individual as a kind of divine right. This divine right thus then informs what all human beings, as individuals, are able to see. It is this closed circle of idealism which then understands the human being as involved with a common effort, which can be understood ultimately as an arena where by various subjective idealisms confront each other. This manner constitutes the individual asserting its own ideas upon the world, and upon each other, as opposed to gaining ideas from what is actually arising and occurring.

The newer approach to reality understand itself coming upon what is actually occurring, which is to see that reality is just filled with things, and that the human being has a responsibility to encounter the issues that arise from the relationships between things.

The polemic that I’m laying out here is not some thing that we have encountered before in history, I believe. Simply because there was no need to discern between these two approaches. It is not so much that idealism once dominated; in actuality it is because the meaning of idealism has changed while the symbolic representation, otherwise known as discourse, has remained the same. It is the ideal, the very idea that the terms are relating Constant meaning through time which is the source of discrepancy in our world today. This is to say that No matter what we would read or think of idealism that was written 200 years ago, there is no way to say that the meaning that we are coming to right now is the meaning that they meant 200 years ago.

What we are finding in our current politics is the gap that appears between a “living document” (reality) and an “original intention” (idealism).

It is a manifestation of how human consciousness is behaving now. Which is to say, this is not how human consciousness was behaving in the past. And the discrepancy arises within the event where someone would propose that we have a way to come upon a meaning that someone had a long time ago.

This is not to say that we cannot come to some meaning that someone had a long time ago, but very much what some authors have talked about before, but likewise has been missed in the estimation of a constant semantics; Namely, that we would have to bracket, they didn’t so much as we might understand some sort of meaning that occurred in the past, it is all he was qualified within a bracket of knowing that is only occurring right now. This is not an argument for any sort of presentism, because there too with the ideal of presentism be subject to the same condition in the attempt of trying to overcome it .


The irony lay in how original intension supports idealist righteousness through its use of the “living document”: postmodern deconstructionism allows the truth to arise in how one uses discourse: the truth stems from the right of the individual who can present it any way that fits with the right of divine audience, since it has no responsibility to any thing, or anyone else but the relationship of the individual with the source of the inspired truth, namely, for any other term, God: Reality is what the argument can be made to present.


So I wonder if we can ever really get back to the issues at hand, such that we are Americans talking about issues, rather than individual people talking about who constitutes the “actual American”.