Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Chit-Chat » Besides English, what languages do you speak? » 12/29/2018 12:21 am

Hypatia
Replies: 11

Go to post

John West wrote:

That's the one. They clearly know their Aristotle and primary source Aquinas, but, for instance, I've seen one of their administrators correcting himself that God is a brute fact. (I half expected some of the guys from here to show up with pitchforks! Haha.)

The conversation with Ingthorsson was another instance. I remember thinking that some of what Ingthorsson was saying was fairly boilerplate in contemporary powers theory, which is heavily influenced by C. B. Martin. They completely missed it, though, and spent a lot of time talking past him. People here would have been more likely to pick up on it.

Is there any real dialogue between modern French Thomism and continental philosophy? I'm very sympathetic to the 20th century European Thomists I've read (Pieper, Maritain), but I'm not sure to what extent that type of existentially flavored Thomism is a thing of the past. I'm certainly not seeing it at that forum.

(Spanish and French for me, and I definitely like the idea of non-English subforums.)

Chit-Chat » Does "Hardcore" Evangelical Christianity scare the shit out of anybody » 12/23/2018 3:34 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 1

Go to post

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the Reformed tradition, since it's really characterized by a long debate between Calvinist and Arminian soteriology, and you will find Evangelicals on either side of the question. They can get pretty extreme on both sides, so it's not like one is more hardcore than the other.

But yeah, I find Calvinism disturbing, but also too arbitrary to really take seriously.

Religion » Jesus Christ » 12/16/2018 12:00 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 17

Go to post

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

I'm suspicious of anyone who tries as hard as Mythicists do to twist the historical evidence to fit a pet theory rather than letting it speak for itself. It's just bad scholarship.

Mythicism is becoming more popular among people though. Most people don't know that Jordan Peterson is probably a mythicist and there are Christians who are saying that he's one of those "sincere seekers of the truth." WTF?
 

Yes, I noticed that about Jordan Peterson recently, but I think it's more an element of his Jungian approach than anything else. If everything is a matter of psychological archetypes, then the historical question disappears into a mess of images and motifs.

I think Mythicism is if anything less popular than it used to be--it's no longer the trendy, daring hyper-skeptical option that it once was. Now you just look like a fringe conspiracy theorist with a minimal understanding of how history works.

Religion » Jesus Christ » 12/15/2018 5:40 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 17

Go to post

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

Honestly, the amount of creative reinterpretation that you need to do to make the Pauline Epistles say what the Mythicists want them to say is pretty remarkable. I'm not sure how they manage to get "born of a woman" in Galatians 4:4-5 to mean "not born of a woman" instead, but I suspect they have their methods.

I think they would deny Galatians was written by Paul. It is one of the disputed epistles according to Wikipedia, so this could be a viable interpretation.
 

No, Galatians is one of the seven epistles generally considered authentic. It does seem that they doubt the authenticity of that particular line, though, judging it to be a later interpolation because Tertullian doesn't refer to it in quite the way they think he ought to have. Because they are mind readers and all.

I'm suspicious of anyone who tries as hard as Mythicists do to twist the historical evidence to fit a pet theory rather than letting it speak for itself. It's just bad scholarship. 

Religion » Jesus Christ » 12/14/2018 11:04 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 17

Go to post

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

The atheist consensus is that Paul believed in a spirit Jesus. Again, I can't prove or disprove this.

It's not a consensus. You're not going to find many reputable historians who accept Mythicism. The more normal secular view is that an historical Jesus existed and that a number of miracles were eventually attributed to him.

Honestly, the amount of creative reinterpretation that you need to do to make the Pauline Epistles say what the Mythicists want them to say is pretty remarkable. I'm not sure how they manage to get "born of a woman" in Galatians 4:4-5 to mean "not born of a woman" instead, but I suspect they have their methods.

Theoretical Philosophy » Virtual Reality Conjecture » 12/09/2018 8:39 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 11

Go to post

Cosmyk wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

Why do you think it's a threat to theism?

If we live in some kind of simulation, we could not know much about the world that simulates our world. The premises of the Classical arguments would be cast into doubt, because we could be fooled by the simulation about them. Maybe there is some way to make them work, but very little has been written attempting to do that.

It might affect cosmological arguments (though no more so than any other version of epistemological skepticism), but if the line of ontological arguments can be made to work, they should work as well in a virtual reality as in an objective one. Arguments from consciousness are also equally powerful, since self-aware virtual programs are as difficult to explain as self-aware material objects, and things like qualia are if anything an even poorer fit with the virtual conjecture.

Religion » A religious urge » 11/19/2018 11:38 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 17

Go to post

I can definitely sympathize, since I'm in a similar boat. Not Catholic, but I can neither truly accept nor reject Christianity. It's one of infinite live options, but the one that everything else tends to coalesce around just because of how reality-shattering its claims are.

I would ask you why you think it might be intellectually dishonest to introduce a bit of fideism to the picture. "I believe, help my unbelief" can be a legitimate aspect of Christian faith, and Pascal really isn't the sort of thinker who should be disregarded without a fair hearing.

Chit-Chat » What was the biggest shift in your worldview and the reasons for it? » 11/07/2018 11:45 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 13

Go to post

John West wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

Have I been obscurantist? If so, it hasn't been deliberate.

No. That was a “Though, if you're planning to start writing more like a continental, I ask that you avoid certain pitfalls a lot of continentals fall into” kind of comment.

Haha, but making up your own words is funhttp://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/lol.png

Chit-Chat » What was the biggest shift in your worldview and the reasons for it? » 11/07/2018 9:25 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 13

Go to post

John West wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

Hard to say, since I've always been something of a continentalist trying to fit myself into analytic categories. It tends to create more confusion than it solves.

So stop doing it! http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png

I seriously doubt that I'm the only one on here familiar with continental literature, and where we don't understand we can just ask for clarification or translation. The only thing I ask is that you avoid the kind of deliberate obscurantism Foucault famously quipped about. (I think the analytic-leaning philosophers on here do a pretty good job of avoiding the opposite danger, of insisting on a sort of specious clarity even when grubbing at the limits of intelligibility.)

Have I been obscurantist? If so, it hasn't been deliberate.

I didn't mean that I was trying to fit myself into analytic categories for the benefit of people here, though. I only have a B.A. in philosophy, which is a decade old now, and philosophy of mind is a much more recent interest. So I've been reading analytic philosophy of mind and trying to approach the problem on those terms, with Heidegger rolling around somewhere in the back of my mind, and I think Heidegger finally won. So I'm not sure how much my position has really changed--mostly it's been a process of disillusionment with the way the question has been asked at all.

I have concerns about dualism, partly because of phenomena like multiple personalities and split-brain surgery (though these seem to support a variety of views, depending on the research in question). I don't see how intentionality can be eliminated, so reducing mind to matter does not appear to work unless matter is conceived of teleologically. I don't think teleology entails dualism, though, so a non-naturalistic form of materialism looks like a fairly strong possibility. I have concerns with it, but I have more concerns with the altern

Chit-Chat » What was the biggest shift in your worldview and the reasons for it? » 11/04/2018 4:31 pm

Hypatia
Replies: 13

Go to post

Hard to say, since I've always been something of a continentalist trying to fit myself into analytic categories. It tends to create more confusion than it solves.

Any integrated top-down theory of mind makes sense to me (insofar as anything in philosophy of mind makes sense), whereas attempts to separate out what is physical and what is mental do not. I'm fond of idealism, but ultimately lean more towards a non-reductive form of materialism. Back to my phenomenological roots, I suppose. When it comes to the mind and the self, all roads eventually lead me to theology, so there's no point in driving around the countryside first.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum