Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:16 pm This just in:

Sadly, due to supply chain issues, there is an extreme shortage of energy drinks in Australia.

Lethargy strikes the nation!

I wonder if some of the luckier and better provisioned might work to arrange a shipment to Harry? I’d like to hear more from him.
I painstakingly typed out a heartfelt reply to this on my mobile only for it to disappear on clicking "Preview". I don't have the heart to repeat it. 😕

Suffice it to say: the energy drinks are flowing just fine, I'm just away visiting fam with very little tech. Will respond more fulsomely when I'm back on a full-sized keyboard. Be well, denizens of PN.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

AJ wrote: My object is to clarify the perspective that I have, and must live with, in the face of the opposition that I receive.
Dubious wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:00 amWhy? Even IC doesn't give a crap about anyone's opposition. The only opposition able to change anything are the insurrections that boil from the inside.
What an odd question, from where I sit.

If I'm to answer I have to back-track. Ultimately, we are dealing here (here on this forum, and here in this plane of manifestation) with questions of ultimate meaning. I do not mean to say that I think this is your driving concern, who knows what your driving concern is? (Perhaps you have never thought about it and perhaps such a pointed question is not of use to you?) But that behind all culture and civilization and government and ideation it is these questions that loom.

Our own hopped-up Harry was once a participant on a forum, now shut down, where such absolute questions were debated over the course of many years. In the course of my participation there, dealing with some men (the founders of the forum) who felt they had got down to metaphysical bedrock and defined a sort of neo-Buddhist alternative to the decadence and decay of the West and of the modern world, in the course of participation I formed the set of ideas I now work with. They were and they are still an odd bunch.

Their apperceptions and their choices in regard to the inanity of modern culture led them to define a radical program and to (more or less) preach the necessity of those perceptions and those choices. I was always in fundamental disagreement with them because they were, to a man, atheists and (I'd also say) anti-metaphysicians. However, their mettle and in a way their resoluteness had an effect on my own thinking. But when I came to some conclusions about what they were doing (intellectually, spiritually let's say) I came to believe that they too were an 'outcome' of forces & events (in the realm of ideas) of which they were not sufficiently aware. Nevertheless my exposure to them, and to their resoluteness in regard to 'absolute principles', set me to work to define what I felt they were missing.

Oddly, they turned out to be more-or-less coddled liberals and subjects of their socialized Australian state. That is to say men who were not really free. This contrasted in my view very harshly with their radical absolutist positions (involving manly independence and living in accord with the absolute truths they defined). It is kind of a long story (I realize as I try to offer a succinct [!] picture). They revealed their cards, so to speak, through political and cultural events in 2016 more or less. I won't bother to go into details.

In any case at the end of many years of involvement there I felt I was left with the task of defining what I felt these fellows could not define. I always felt that they dismissed far too much about our own culture. I concluded they were 'ignorant' of it in the sense that they lacked 'proper preparation' of what I came to call paideia.

What this entailed was a research of the bedrock of Occidental ideation by examining anti-liberal positions. Julius Evola and René Guénon were just two quite radical intellectuals who define positions that are largely diametrically oppositional to what Guénon defines as 'the crisis of the modern world' (in his study by that name). They are very influential within the Dissident Right along with a group of others. I would place Richard Weaver within the category of the radical Dissident Right given that he grounds his ideas in an understanding of foundational metaphysics. (I must mention that Weaver's first book was The Southern Traditions at Bay -- A History of Postbellum Thought.)

Therefore, the necessity of discovering, of defining, of making choices about, what are those foundational metaphysics. Something that Guénon wrote caught my attention. That as far as the Occident goes (caught in fast-moving liberal and progressive processes which can only culminate in disaster, which in my view seems to be the case) the place where at least some of those foundational ideas are preserved is within Catholic doctrines (and also religious symbols). And that is essentially what I have found to be true. And also why I approach Christianity and Catholicism as 'symbols' which speak to larger, constant, foundational truths.

Immanuel Can's position, I have come to see, places him within a certain type of irrelevancy. If all that you can say to people is "Watch it! Because in a few moments or years you are going to stand face-to-face with a God who will likely banish you into the shelves of a living hell!" then you really do not have any program at all. IC has been extremely valuable to me because he is, without knowing it, a hyper-liberal in his own odd way. He is not a conservative! Because conservatism involves a set of definitions that, at least as I see things, involves radical and oppositional positions. He cannot explain the metaphysical principles that undergird his Christian façade of belief. What he does, or so it seems, is to bark at neo-Marxists who march in the institutional hallways of our culture. That is part of the struggle. But there is far more too it. There is really a whole range of things I was forced to confront in confronting what IC represented to me. (This has zilch to do with him personally though).

That is why I said: "My object is to clarify the perspective that I have, and must live with, in the face of the opposition that I receive."
The only opposition able to change anything are the insurrections that boil from the inside.
This is a meaningless statement unless you better define what you are getting at. My view is that unless a given person is grounded in foundational concepts, which in turn are grounded in foundational metaphysics, that person will not be able to define a position that corresponds to Being and will be a 'victim' (i.e. be captured by, be propelled by, be directed by) mutability and contingency.

But 'insurrection'? Whatever could you mean? What would one be in insurrection against or in relation to? I would begin to answer that question by saying "in insurrection against what we have become". Insofar as we are products and outcomes of people who have become unmoored from those 'foundations'.

So I would venture to say that you, Dubious, because you cannot seem to define a solidity within yourself, and because you seem to reject the idea of strict or absolute metaphysical definitions (I might refer to Weaver here and his description of an encounter with the 'witches on the heath"), you are a living example of insurrection. But I think all of are, to one degree or another.

So if once Christianity was seen as 'taking the Christian cure' and gaining a position, internally, on correct metaphysical foundations, and as a result being 'cured' and 'healed', I do not in any sense reject or ridicule or dismiss the acute need for what corresponds to the same for us today. But we are not going to find it, or not enough of it, in conventional Christianity (nor Judaism for that matter).
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:00 am ...and that's all I have time for today.
It is obviously time to quit your day job. 😂
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:00 am That's interesting. I have heard of him but know little about him. I'll look him up to gather more details. Regardless of what you think of me, I'll never say never even if I know it can't be true. Analogically - though not exactly right to compare it thus - what Vedānta is to Guénon, seems to me, the Core Theory of physics is to reality being a far greater manifestation of what is than any philosophy no matter how brilliant.
The Crisis of the Modern World
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

DaM
There is no purpose of life. Life never asks itself, what is my purpose. Purpose is an artificial construct of thinking, 'thoughts' are by-products of knowing consciousness, that can never experience or see itself as a conceptual object.
This is why we cannot understand each other. Where you take the wholeness of God as the only reality while everything else is a dream, I believe the devolution of God into three as the beginning of creation is a natural quality of God. The Holy Trinity of Christianity and the Hindu trimurti for example are what makes God complete.

God as the ALL containing everything within it as conscious potentials is the active force. It is opposed by the passive force of resistance or what creates individuality within creation. They manifest as phenomenon by the force of reconciliation uniting them. So for me, conscious individuality which contemplates its existence in relation to its source is essential for the completeness of God.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:33 am
Nick_A wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:25 am My interest is in the purpose of our universe and the purpose of life including man within it. There is no reason that this should interest you. You can have a very good life unconcerned with these questions.
I don't see the universe or life within it as having a purpose. However it all came to exist, I don't have any reason to think it was the product of purposeful intention. Between what the laws of nature allow, and what they forbid, matter just interacts until something results from it, and a temporary state of balance is arrived at. As for the laws of nature, I don't imagine they are conscious of what they are doing, or were put in place by some conscious agent with an intention. It isn't true to say that I'm not interested in the workings of the universe, and what it contains; I'm very interested, but I wouldn't attempt to aggrandise that interest by calling it anything other than curiosity.

But what if the universe is an enormous machine structured on levels of reality created by laws and consciousness? The universe as a machine doesn't have to think since its purpose is to serve what created it. Curiousity is a good thing but limited by the more important value of pleasure. Jacob Needleman asks in his book "Lost Christianity: "does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?" Jacob Needleman

How do we react toward such people who seem odd to the majority. Are they nuts for their willingness to sacrifice pleasure for their need to experience truth or are we nuts to be oblivious of the value of experiencing the truth of the human condition?

Nick_A wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:25 am Who am I and why do I exist? If these questions do not appeal to you,
The answers to the questions, "who am I, and why do I exist", can only be subjective. What am I, and how did I come to exist would probably be the questions I would ask that come closest to those that you propose. I'm sure I must have wondered about these things from time to time, but I don't remember ever coming up with any conclusive answers. I suppose I am lucky in as much as I don't have a burning desire to know the answers, but not knowing them seems to put some people in quite a state of turmoil.


Why do I exist? There are two way to approach this question. Which way makes the most sense to you? The first way is thru philosophical discussion and debates. The second is what Socrates discovered when he said "I know Nothing" leaving the path open to higher reason and conscious contemplation.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:25 am what is the purpose of philosophy for you? Is it limited to how to better react as a society?
There are branches of philosophy that are solely concerned with how we should live, both as individuals and as members of society. If that sort of philosophy brings about any increase in human satisfaction with life, I would say that its practice is justified. As for philosophy that concerns itself with metaphysics and such, it is harder for me to say what the benefits might be. Don't talk to me about spirituality, though, because that would be like giving a book to someone with severe dyslexia.
I agree with you as far as spirituality is concerned. It may begin with good intentions in the need for meaning but soon becomes contaminated with self justifying imagination defeating its purpose.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:02 pm

I agree with you as far as spirituality is concerned.


Well that's something, I suppose. :)
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:10 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:02 pm

I agree with you as far as spirituality is concerned.


Well that's something, I suppose. :)


It is progress. Those are some rough ideas I introduced. You responded sincerely without any nastiness in the past considered normal for the forum. Maybe we are both more mature. :)
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:28 pm

It is progress. Those are some rough ideas I introduced. You responded sincerely without any nastiness in the past considered normal for the forum. Maybe we are both more mature. :)
No, I haven't always been on my best behaviour in the past, have I. I try to be a bit more civilised these days. :wink:
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Vide cui credas: diabolus quoque angelus olim fuit.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:21 pm
Vide cui credas: diabolus quoque angelus olim fuit.
nulla sollicitudine, amigo :wink:
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:50 pmMy view is that unless a given person is grounded in foundational concepts, which in turn are grounded in foundational metaphysics, that person will not be able to define a position that corresponds to Being and will be a 'victim' (i.e. be captured by, be propelled by, be directed by) mutability and contingency.
...and you think you won't be captured by mutability and contingency just because you defined a position for yourself which you regard as "foundational" by some metaphysical correspondence to Being! That's the modus Nick, IC and all suchlike believers employ each in his own way so as not to become a victim of m & c. It's the anodyne against the realization of our existence floating on a plane of complete indifference otherwise it wouldn't need to be created and anchored by any grand complex of metaphysics.

"Being" may denote a multitude of correspondences. Not sure which one includes me and I don't care. The reason; the universe itself has no such correspondence to its Being; no metaphysical requirement for purpose in its origin, continuance, or ending. It's only with conscious beings that imagination takes over to counter the ultimate reality of meaninglessness...in other words against the pain of it being a consummate secular entity where only rules apply...the one "objective truth" which never yet, in spite of all our metaphysics, contradicted itself.

That should summarize our main differences; I don't see what more there is to talk about.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:52 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 2:50 pmMy view is that unless a given person is grounded in foundational concepts, which in turn are grounded in foundational metaphysics, that person will not be able to define a position that corresponds to Being and will be a 'victim' (i.e. be captured by, be propelled by, be directed by) mutability and contingency.
...and you think you won't be captured by mutability and contingency just because you defined a position for yourself which you regard as "foundational" by some metaphysical correspondence to Being! That's the modus Nick, IC and all suchlike believers employ each in his own way so as not to become a victim of m & c. It's the anodyne against the realization of our existence floating on a plane of complete indifference otherwise it wouldn't need to be created and anchored by any grand complex of metaphysics.
Esteemed Dubious I am pretty sure that you misunderstand. Everyone is completely enclosed and subsumed in Becoming (mutability & contingency) and we seek an anchor! Even you! Of one sort or another. I am describing a factor (a predicate) that has operated in Occidental philosophy and in the human endeavor (if I can put it in this way). Any statement of truth, if such is possible, requires some type of anchor.

If there is a foundation -- and this can only be in Ideas -- then the proposition is that this can be discovered, realized. So let me turn back to Richard Weaver who bases an entire stance (an existential position) on his belief that such metaphysical foundations exist. You do not have to agree with me or with him. My larger endeavor is simply to locate our specific positions! And I want to draw to your attention that the struggles, the ideological struggles of our day, all seem to hinge in this issue, this problem.

If there is no metaphysical foundation to our being, and to Being, then I suppose that at some point we will all have to accept this. My own sense is that the forces that operate against the understanding that such do exist will ultimately result in the destruction of knowledge as a veritable possibility. I regard that, or I might describe that, as nescience (avidya).
That's the modus Nick, IC and all suchlike believers employ each in his own way so as not to become a victim of m & c.
I would say that we live in the shadows of fading metaphysical conceptions, or of a metaphysics that has fractured. But as you know I use the term fractured and fracturing in a special sense.

It is true that all Medieval metaphysical systems attempted to define the anchor I refer to. And it is true that 'intellectus' is the means by which this is carried out. Personally, I do not see IC as being in error for seeking, or feeling, he has discovered a ground, what I do not agree with are the limitations that he applies. That is, his system is too closed. Christianity needs to be explained through a more inclusive metaphysics. I am more partial to what Nick is getting at.

And I am also aware that seeking 'foundations' and groundings is an act of a certain desperation -- given what the present portends for us. To be *in desperate straights* is not the best condition for clear-headed inquiry.
"Being" may denote a multitude of correspondences. Not sure which one includes me and I don't care. The reason; the universe itself has no such correspondence to its Being; no metaphysical requirement for purpose in its origin, continuance, or ending. It's only with conscious beings that imagination takes over to counter the ultimate reality of meaninglessness...in other words against the pain of it being a consummate secular entity where only rules apply...the one "objective truth" which never yet, in spite of all our metaphysics, contradicted itself.
That is a knotty statement. I am not myself certain that 'not caring' is a valid option.
That should summarize our main differences; I don't see what more there is to talk about.
Then I would ask you: Why do you even appear to participate on a philosophy forum where such things are necessarily discussed?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:29 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:21 pm
Vide cui credas: diabolus quoque angelus olim fuit.
nulla sollicitudine, amigo :wink:
Quid, Me Anxius Sum? 👍
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amAny statement of truth, if such is possible, requires some type of anchor.
...and there's the rub, much of what philosophy is all about never ceasing to be what it was always about. I wonder if ALL reference to god and truth were verboten what style of philosophy would emerge.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amI am pretty sure that you misunderstand. Everyone is completely enclosed and subsumed in Becoming (mutability & contingency) and we seek an anchor! Even you! Of one sort or another. I am describing a factor (a predicate) that has operated in Occidental philosophy and in the human endeavor (if I can put it in this way).
My response was to what you explicitly stated and not easily misunderstood. Maybe you didn't mean it in exactly that way; that's a possibility.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amIf there is a foundation -- and this can only be in Ideas -- then the proposition is that this can be discovered, realized
I don't think so. It can only be accepted as such in presuming to have discovered such a foundation.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amIf there is no metaphysical foundation to our being, and to Being, then I suppose that at some point we will all have to accept this. My own sense is that the forces that operate against the understanding that such do exist will ultimately result in the destruction of knowledge as a veritable possibility. I regard that, or I might describe that, as nescience (avidya).
What other metaphysical foundation has there been for that last 2000 years whose relationship to knowledge was as dismal and possibly lethal for those who expounded it and what happened when the power of Christian metaphysics started to wane? It requires none of that magic to establish our will to know, metaphysics itself being a result of it.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amI would say that we live in the shadows of fading metaphysical conceptions, or of a metaphysics that has fractured. But as you know I use the term fractured and fracturing in a special sense.
...which goes to show nothing can ever be established on the basis of a truth which offers no contradiction keeping its steady-state pure and permanent.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amPersonally, I do not see IC as being in error for seeking, or feeling, he has discovered a ground, what I do not agree with are the limitations that he applies. That is, his system is too closed.
It's childish, possessing not the least sophistication, whose core amounts to nothing more than the will to be redeemed and Jesus to make that determination on Judgment day. Simply calling that a "limitation" vastly overstates the merits of that belief.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amAnd I am also aware that seeking 'foundations' and groundings is an act of a certain desperation -- given what the present portends for us. To be *in desperate straights* is not the best condition for clear-headed inquiry.
That's a good point but since when have we ever been clear-headed about anything except in terms of dogma?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amThat is a knotty statement. I am not myself certain that 'not caring' is a valid option.
I think you misunderstood in what context the "not caring" was applied!
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 amThen I would ask you: Why do you even appear to participate on a philosophy forum where such things are necessarily discussed?
To keep one's verbosity lubricated; certainly not to find or discover any ultimate truths as an interminable discussion. Those kinds of exchanges only serve to make one dizzy like a perpetual merry-go-round which never ceases to perform its 360 degree cycles.
Post Reply