value of metaphysics

[angellous_evangellous]

You only think it proves your case because you think in binary. Either/or.

I'm a biblical scholar. "Both" is the common way to solve many problems in biblical interpretation.

I don't think that you can review my work and conclude that I'm a binary thinker.

I think that it proves my case because it does. I said that metaphysics just makes stuff up, and then you plainly affirmed my argument.

 

[lilithu]

! Who gave you the idea you should do this? (not a criticism)

Should? How else to respond to the paradox that is the world?

Life is inherently contradictory. To try to filter it through a single lens for the sake of mental clarity does violence to it by denying the validity of everything that is filtered out. No one told me that I "should" do this; I simply see no other way to live life in recognition of all of life without doing so. As I said, this is not a comfortable position. I live in the tension between contradictions. So if you know a better way I'm all ears.

 

[lilithu]

I think that it proves my case because it does. I said that metaphysics just makes stuff up, and then you plainly affirmed my argument.

No. I said "*IF* there isn't (a why), then we have to invent it." Your argument is still binary. Panentheist that I am, my reality is neither objective absolute nor the subjective invention. To say that there is a why is a distortion. To say that there is not a why is a distortion. I believe that something is there that we interpret. Our interpretation is always partly invention, but not entirely invention.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Our interpretation is always partly invention, but not entirely invention.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Quiddity]

Namaste Victor.

I honestly do not know how to discuss it. The only term that I can find to describe it was coined by Davidium, "mystical naturalism." I try to hold two contradictory views simultaneously without rejecting the validity of either and without trying to reconcile them to each other and honestly, I fall over to one side or the other all the time and then scramble back. It is not a comfortable position.

That is very interesting lilthu. That is very similar to what I do all the time. Faith is about the only thing keeping me from going to the other side. Although I often cheat without violating my tenets.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there isn't, then we have to invent it.

And you call this process of inventing meaning "metaphysics"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. I said "*IF* there isn't (a why), then we have to invent it." Your argument is still binary. Panentheist that I am, my reality is neither objective absolute nor the subjective invention.

Of course it is. Panentheism (or, to use Kaplan's term, transnaturalism) is not simply naturalism++. It's a denial of naturalism.

 

[Maxist]

I agree with Golyadkin. We need the falsehoods.

 

[Golyadkin]

Yes I have read it...well parts of it. It had a strong influence on me at University and contributed to my views on the irrational/suprarational mind.

That passage is very revealing Kierkegaard is quite clearly intimately familiar with the meaningless chaos that can ensue when metaphysical thought breaks down, but just as he reaches, "how empty and devoid of comfort life would be!" he brings on the Knight of Faith who overrides the rational mind's doubts, and corresponding despair, by choosing to believe in God regardless. He saw this as a necessity of crossing the limitations of the moral sphere (by way of the leap of faith) into that of the genuinely religious, a decision that can only be made after (if I may draw a parallel) an individual has seen into the depths of the Dark Night of the Soul. . .Any thoughts on this Golyadkin?

You dont seem to have appriciated the paradox kierkegaad was drawing by means Faith and Infinate resignation. All you have stated here is is an empty shell of the faith keirkegaad couldnt comprehend at all, and then you go on to say that infact it is the 'same faith that you share in relation to god.'
It was precisely blind faith the paradox that came of his method of thought after he had made the 'movement' of infinate resignation, that totally escapes his comprehention, and is the only thing that separates Abraham 'the father of faith' from a murderer. He was looking for a way to be happy in the world after the the infinate resignation, but his honesty meant that he cuoldnt simply forget his first movement, as it appears you were making out, for that would be a contradiction, and "the knight of infinate resignation does not contradict himself". But for him to infinately resign himself to the world, and then on the strengh of hope or the 'absurd' to get it all back; and therefore make the second movement of infinate narrowmindedness as to be exactly the same as before was what he found impossible to do, he could only imagine it, but whenever he approached to doing it he got lost in a giddy whirling of mental exahstion, and if this happens for kierkegaad a genius of a thinker, it suggests its probably a deadend; with also the fact that the majority of other prominent philosophers have critised him on this account. But (not to put myself on high) i can sympathise with him, in that he was one of the first to fully appriciate the existences as existential and that he had no one before him, but for a speculative outsider to see this part of his method as plausible seems to me dishonest. And, judgeing by your comment before,

*goes away all doubty and angsty*

tells me that you dont even think the existential dimension exists let alone have even the slightest experience of it, which gives some credit to the begining.

As for buddhism and taoism, i like both, but taoism is one of my favorite philosophys, i love sinology, lieh tzu is probably my favorite. buddhism is great to, except its ideal is to withdraw totally before pain by obliterateing the metaphysics that attach you to the world, instead of courageously walking with it on their shoulders as the existentialists do.

 

[robtex]

For crying out loud I don't want to rate the thread I started..surely somebody sees enough merit in this thread to rate it already!!!

 

[Golyadkin]

You mean consciousness?

I meant the idea fo the self is still a metaphysic, every objectivity even abstract is a metaphysic, and therefore we need metaphysics or 'falsehood' (compared to 'reality') to survive. and by schizophrenia i didnt mean a split in personality - thats a common misconception of it, thats only a possible outcome or means of handleing the intense anxiety the schizophrenic feels.
And also when i wrote 'the christian moreality of god' of was a mistype, i meant or god, so if either of these were the fundamental reality then i would agree that the immoralist or social materialist would be the outcome in that they had turned their backs on god. But i agree that the collaspe (or gradual) has lead people to immoralism and social materialism - but that this was a seed that christianity has planted by means of its existence. And also with the breakdown of one metaphysic another takes its place, if need secretes thought, and the need remains, it will secrete new thoughts of meaning or morality or whatever. Nietzsche says "Only as creators can we distroy"

 

[lilithu]

You dont seem to have appriciated the paradox kierkegaad was drawing by means Faith and Infinate resignation. All you have stated here is is an empty shell of the faith keirkegaad couldnt comprehend at all, and then you go on to say that infact it is the 'same faith that you share in relation to god.'

<...........>

And, judgeing by your comment before,

*goes away all doubty and angsty*

tells me that you dont even think the existential dimension exists let alone have even the slightest experience of it, which gives some credit to the begining.

Dude, it was a self-effacing joke. Lighten up. You're not the only one who's read Soren or contemplated the abyss. I know from previous interactions with him that SW has. The only proper response in the face of the abyss is humour. Granted that it's not enough by itself, but it is essential.

 

[Golyadkin]

i know a sense of humour is essential, i didnt mean to give the impression of getting all serious, i was just trying to put my thoughts across. But i did detect some sacrcasm in his last post so i was just trying to give something back, but nothing personal:areyoucra

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Golyadkin I'm too tired to write much of a response right now. Check your PMs. I notice you're in London so perhaps a phone conversation would be better (it would be for me).

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Golyadkin, written word it is then.

The way I put things didn't draw attention to that paradox of doubt and faith validating each other so I can understand your annoyance. Referring to the Dark Night of the Soul was just too obscure. Let me clarify: The way I view Kierkegaard's faith was that it could only be such by virtue that it could have no basis in reason, i.e. was incomprehensible to the intellect and at its root would be a sort of blind faith.

As I see it the problem with Kierkegaard's 'method of thought' is that it invoked the irrational. While a dead-end to philosophy (because it appeals to something other than reasoned argument) it is not to other disciplines that tolerate the irrational as something other than (just) an archaic threat. I see his method as plausible because I see it as having something of psychological value.

 

[Golyadkin]

The way I put things didn't draw attention to that paradox of doubt and faith validating each other so I can understand your annoyance.

Can you try and cut down on the sarcasm please to me it demostrates a lack of intelligence that you feel compelled to get the upperhand on me this way

As I see it the problem with Kierkegaard's 'method of thought' is that it invoked the irrational. While a dead-end to philosophy (because it appeals to something other than reasoned argument) it is not to other disciplines that tolerate the irrational as something other than (just) an archaic threat. I see his method as plausible because I see it as having something of psychological value.

The way you were making it out was that Kierkegaads ideal was to forget that the absurd ever existed, and that would be a contradiction, which he didnt believe in: even in this last post you wrote "The problem with Kierkegaads method of thought is that it evoked the irrational".
I dont see how anyone can honestly hold blind faith in connection with reality, and niether could Kierkegaad, as i said before; he couldnt comprehend it at all. Blind faith is merely a very strong perhaps beautiful feeling; even from this discription it suggests the idea that the only reason the believer evokes the presence of God and sticks to his ideas so obstinately is in fear of loosing this feeling by coming into contact with reality.

Philosophy isnt just 'reasoned agument', its come along way since the days of Plato, reason is for the existentialist merely a tool for 'ordering' the human world, the absurd is all thats left after you strip away everything, as i quoted Nietzsche before "If you want to spare your eyes and your mind, follow the sun from the shadows behind."
On the contrary, blind faith has more Reason, and a more crafty one in that, in that because the feeling is so beautiful they feel compelled to draw upon the idea of another Being whose power and authority is 'unquestionable', so doubt is eliminated from their mind and they never have to give up their "beautiful feeling" to anything that lies beyond it. Niezsche descibed it as a "Sublime further development of hedonism, upon a thoughrouly morib soil"
Just because something or some part of a method is not plausible, doesnt mean its viod of psychological value

 

[lilithu]

Can you try and cut down on the sarcasm please to me it demostrates a lack of intelligence that you feel compelled to get the upperhand on me this way

Golyadkin, I don't know what SW wrote to make you think he was being sarcastic. I've gone back and reread your entire conversation and can find no hint of sarcasm, only his straight-forward responses. If you think he's trying to upperhand you I suggest that you are projecting on to him.

Please reread the following quote by him.

I see his method as plausible because I see it as having something of psychological value.

And then your response.

Just because something or some part of a method is not plausible, doesnt mean its viod of psychological value

Clearly your negativity towards him is preventing you from reading his words correctly.


SW, you do seem to think that Kierkegaard resorts to faith in God in order to avoid the horrors of the abyss. I don't agree. For Kierkegaard, God is a given reality, not an invented refuge. His goal wasn't to avoid existential doubt and angst. His goal was to live in this world and reach God at the same time. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac was not about avoiding doubt and angst. All he had to do was refuse. Reason would have told him to refuse. Society and social ethics would have told him to refuse. I mean, how many people would have doubt and angst about the rightness of refusing to kill one's own child? But Abraham and Kierkegaard refuse to discount God and therefore must face the dilemma of two competing demands.

In pursuit of God Kierkegaard took reason to its limit. He showed by reason how reason alone was not enough. (This was reacting directly against Hegel's thesis/antithesis/synthesis.) At the limit of reason, he knows that there is nothing left to do but make the leap of faith. His rational mind comprehends that this is the only option but it cannot comprehend the faith itself. That's why he's so fascinated with Abraham. That's what Fear and Trembling is about, imnsho. And if people criticize Soren now for leaving the realm of the rational it's because they don't presume the same reality that he did. If one doesn't presume God then Abraham is nothing but a crazed attempted murderer of the worst kind (there being nothing worse in the eyes of society than killing one's own child).

 

[Golyadkin]

First of all, i woldnt project anything on anyone:149in as far as thats possible), i thought i detected sarcasm throughout his last few posts. By his saying

I see his method as plausible because I see it as having something of psychological value.

suggests to me that if a method is not plausible it has no psychological value, given his interpretation of Kierkegaad that his method is plausible anyway.
But otherwise i moreorless agree completely with what you said, couldnt have put it better myself. Except from my own personal interpretation and world-view, Kierkegaad's not being able to discard the reality of God is that it was to ingrained in his psyche, for one, and that he also couldnt take the reality of the Absurd on its own; i think it was subconciously a little of both, in that he was te first to say what he did. Either way "he's struggleing with a reality beyond his comprehention" as Camus put it. Your right though, without blindfaith being the fundamental reality, Abraham is a crazed murderer, willing to kill his favorite child for the sake of some fantastic fantasy.

 

[lilithu]

By his saying

"I see his method as plausible because I see it as having something of psychological value."

suggests to me that if a method is not plausible it has no psychological value, given his interpretation of Kierkegaad that his method is plausible anyway.

I took SW's statement to mean that the reason why he thinks Kierkegaard's method is plausible is because it has psychological value. Which is pretty much exactly what he said. Straight-forward.

But otherwise i moreorless agree completely with what you said, couldnt have put it better myself. Except from my own personal interpretation and world-view, Kierkegaad's not being able to discard the reality of God is that it was to ingrained in his psyche, for one, and that he also couldnt take the reality of the Absurd on its own; i think it was subconciously a little of both, in that he was te first to say what he did. Either way "he's struggleing with a reality beyond his comprehention" as Camus put it. Your right though, without blindfaith being the fundamental reality, Abraham is a crazed murderer, willing to kill his favorite child for the sake of some fantastic fantasy.

What you're saying is something in between SW's and my position, so I don't understand why you find his comments so objectionable.

I am a theist as Kierkegaard was a theist. God is an experienced reality to me (that is still beyond my comprehension). However, the reality of God does not lessen the Absurd to me, not at all. Honestly, I don't understand why it would. Any meaning that God may or may not intend must still be appropriated by each person by his or her choices. It simply cannot be imposed on a person despite what some theists may think. If they think that they don't have a choice, it's because they choose to think so. God may have been speaking directly into Abraham's ear but it was still up to Abraham to choose as he did.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Can you try and cut down on the sarcasm please to me it demostrates a lack of intelligence that you feel compelled to get the upperhand on me this way

Golyadkin truly I am not trying to mock you! What you are interpreting as sarcasm is misunderstood. For example, that comment I made about faith and doubt validating each other was by way of saying, "I screwed up, let's start over." Also, I don't want to compete with you intellectually! I would surely lose anyway, and it would be an unnecessary strain and distraction from what could otherwise be a (personally at least) valuable exchange of ideas, and I hope, of inter-personal worth too.

The way you were making it out was that Kierkegaads ideal was to forget that the absurd ever existed, and that would be a contradiction, which he didnt believe in: even in this last post you wrote "The problem with Kierkegaads method of thought is that it evoked the irrational".

To imply that the absurd was lost was not my intent. I don't feel it is lost by invoking the irrational either, quite the opposite if it is understood that it is irrational. This is something that touches on areas that would need a great deal of discussion! (amongst other things 'tis why I thought a phone call might be in order )

I dont see how anyone can honestly hold blind faith in connection with reality, and niether could Kierkegaad, as i said before; he couldnt comprehend it at all. Blind faith is merely a very strong perhaps beautiful feeling; even from this discription it suggests the idea that the only reason the believer evokes the presence of God and sticks to his ideas so obstinately is in fear of loosing this feeling by coming into contact with reality.

Well, I don't know what you'd make of this, but religious experience can and often does overwhelm the delicate mental balance we use to determine what should be deemed real. For instance, given how brutal and ugly this world appears to be, to believe in a God of love might seem like a mere denial of the harsh realities that have to be faced. However, some people's 'peak experiences' can be so intense as to crush their previous worldview like an eggshell. Rather than confirm some underlying notion of God their ideas can instead be shattered by the force of absortion into something that seems inexplicable, and with that, the defences against a much broader and more direct encounter with 'reality' can loosen up. Just to add, this is the scenario that interests me most, I'm not suggesting this is the norm concerning religion.

On the contrary, blind faith has more Reason, and a more crafty one in that, in that because the feeling is so beautiful they feel compelled to draw upon the idea of another Being whose power and authority is 'unquestionable', so doubt is eliminated from their mind and they never have to give up their "beautiful feeling" to anything that lies beyond it.

Yeah, this happens, but if that beautiful feeling should lead to challenges to the power and authority that has been given to various Gods, institutions, ideas and whatnot, then all manner of uncomfortable things may come of it. Kierkegaard himself was not shy of kicking against the pricks. Again, its not the norm, but it is within the realm of human possibilities. God (or whatever) can be a terrifying thing!

SW, you do seem to think that Kierkegaard resorts to faith in God in order to avoid the horrors of the abyss. I don't agree. For Kierkegaard, God is a given reality, not an invented refuge. His goal wasn't to avoid existential doubt and angst. His goal was to live in this world and reach God at the same time.

Well kinda. I think that metaphysical ideas about God are an invented refuge but I also think that the freedom to choose, that is, invent, can be behind this as well as a deliberate avoidance of such freedom. I know my original post in response to Golyadkin didn't make this clear. Again, all I can do is limply point to the reference to the Dark Night of the Soul as a cop out, and that certain decisions/choices are only understood after going through that.

Either way "he's struggleing with a reality beyond his comprehention" as Camus put it. Your right though, without blindfaith being the fundamental reality, Abraham is a crazed murderer, willing to kill his favorite child for the sake of some fantastic fantasy.

I suspect Kierkegaard's choice of the story of Abraham sacrificing his son was to highlight metaphorically how difficult a position it is to have faith in contradiction to what is expected and acceptable. It had to be offensive in a way that would cut through the pretentious mouth service people give to God, it had to shake people up by presenting a scenario that people could readily appreciate as repellant. If faith cannot be valid without doubt the possibility of being wrong about killing his child had to be there otherwise it wouldn't be a 'leap' of faith but rather a walk in the park with faith.