I can't join the club as of now, however, if it's not a bother, then I'll join after September.

Hypatia wrote:

Do you mean the apophatic tradition and skepticism as a sort of unknowing, or something different?

It's worth distinguishing two kinds of fideism. The first kind of fideism is blind faith that denies that reason can reach truth or make it plausible, and bases all knowledge on some revealed truth; the second makes faith prior to reason. The first kind of fideism claims that reason has no role in the search for truth; the second claims that all rational propositions are to some degree doubtful prior to accepting something on faith.

I'm mainly interested in the second kind of fideism. (The second kind of fideism includes everyone from those who deny that there can be any relation between faith and reason (e.g. Bayle and Kierkegaard) to those who think that certainty can only be attained after we accept some propositions on faith (e.g. Augustine).)

I haven't looked into mysticism as much, but I'm thinking of views of those like certain Buddhists (who think that we should use skeptical arguments to break the hold discursive reasoning has on us) and Christian mystics.

(Incidentally, the first kind of fideism is considered heresy by the Catholic church.)

if you're not starting until October, that shouldn't be an issue.

I don't mind shooting the breeze now and then in off-topic ("Chit-Chat"), but I won't really have time for more involved conversations (like, e.g. the kind that go on in the on topic forums and will at least sometimes go on in the reading group) before October. That I sometimes post in the on topic forums should be taken as a sign that I sometimes lack self-discipline (or that I don't think my post is going to lead to an in-depth conversation, in which case, if it does, I start trying to duck out as soon as I think I can without being too rude).

John West wrote:

I'm mainly interested in the second kind of fideism. (The second kind of fideism includes everyone from those who deny that there can be any relation between faith and reason (e.g. Bayle and Kierkegaard) to those who think that certainty can only be attained after we accept some propositions on faith (e.g. Augustine).)

You know, I'm not sure Kierkegaard was really denying any relation between reason and faith--just stressing the ways that the latter transcends the former. Actually, there's an interesting article here about Kierkegaard and the theme of reason leading to offense and then to faith. (Though it being Kierkegaard, who knows what he really meant about anything.)

But yeah, my inclinations are also strongly in favor of fideism in this sense, though the rational side of my brain tends to run for shelter in Aristotelianism.

Just in case this newly announced volume may be of interest to anyone, I'm posting in the reference:

Chiaradonna, Riccardo, Filippo Forcignanò and Franco Trabattoni (ed.).Ancient ontologies: contemporary debates.Discipline filosofiche, XXVIII:I. Macerata: Quodlibet, 2018. 256 p. €20,00 (pb). ISBN 9788822902214.