attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:56 amCheck it out Harbal. You've read nothing!
..and you are not intellectual!!! - Jacobi equates intelligence with knowledge - a common mistake.
First, what is the purpose
of critique? If that is not clarified all will be confused. My view is that *we* are spokesmen for the time we are in. So, what we say has far more meaning, and relevance, that extends beyond the personal, and our persons. This is a philosophy forum and, in the best of all circumstances, it is a place to discuss ideas and their relationship to the contemporary landscape. Revealing (and understanding) one's purpose is important for this reason.
You
begin with a substantial error, Atto. A misunderstanding (a bad understanding). In our culture, like it or not, to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact.
Your first mistake is that you believe that because I notice that you do not have *intellectual background* (and that Harbal certainly does not) that you take this to mean that I believe you unintelligent. But intelligence is a separate category from that of being intellectually informed and conversant.
Another mistake has two aspects. One, that you do not understand, or seem not to understand, that human being is determined by having and using language. Knowledge is deeply associated with and wedded to language. Literacy is more than merely memorizing by rote, it is familiarity with the ideas that are foundational to our culture. True, there are many different dimensions or areas within our literary culture, and I would not deny that there exists a 'literacy' that is, for example, one pertaining to music -- a whole other topic -- but nevertheless the wider familiarity with our cultural heritage, principally but not exclusively transmitted through language and the written word, depends on what one reads. It is absurd in the first degree to take another position, a contrary position, within the context of Occidental knowledge and certain on a philosophy forum.
But with that said it would be and is foolish (misguided, incorrect) to insist that there are no other means to attain what you refer to as 'knowledge' outside of the discipline of reading, study, conversation and general sharing of ideas. There are all sorts of different ways to experience and gain knowledge and understanding. And it is for this reason that, when I first encountered you (what you write) that it was obvious to me that you are a person deeply involved in an extremely subjective and extremely personal sort of experience. Did I
invalidate this at any point? No.
I've got a lot more than 'zero comprehension' of it - I know enough to know that I don't agree with the interpretations of the Bible that have created "Christianity". I know that I am a Christian (and apparently a good one, as sage/God have stated to me about three times: "Good Christian").
What you say here needs to be addressed, but as I say it involves critique which, given your subjectivity, will appear to be a critique of your person, your
self. That is one problem with 'subjectivity' when it is used as an inward-looking mirror.
To refer to 'sage/god' as having said this or that to you, and to present that as some sort of evidence that your process has yielded something more than a subjective impression, a self-referential assertion of truth, indicates that your thinking is strangely muddled. You could simply be involved in hallucinations. So, no one cares what an internal voice has said to you, and no one should care. It is not something that can be introduced as a valid measure or determinant. Again, the way you set this up is that some disembodied voice that you hear, and which validates some idea or impression that you subjectively have, is bizarre. If everyone involved in *the world of ideas* referred to a voice that spoke to them, or validated an idea, we would be in a very strange place indeed.
There is nothing particularly wrong with disagreement with Bible interpretation. Anyone in fact can state any particular opinion. But stating an opinion, if it is not (say) backed up with a clearly enunciated exposition, or with more than a superficial reading of the Bible and the history of interpretation (hermeneutics), does not qualify as more than a mere subjective impression. And, going further, and speaking of what you seem to do, to rely solely on subjective experience and to employ that as the sole yardstick for arriving at a (say) balanced understanding of what the Bible is and in the context of the conversation on-going here about Christianity as a historical entity, is extremely questionable at the very least. Does this invalidate your subjective impression? No. But it certainly could mean that I have no particularly good reason to pay much attention to your subjective experiences. And again, reliance on a voice that speaks to you must, I think, be dismissed when it is presented as you often present it.
The statement you made, therefore, is off-kilter. I struggle to find the right way (the fair way) to describe it. And again the way you set this up is that to challenge what you say is not to challenge some ideas that can be examined objectively or dispassionately, but is taken by you as invalidation of
your self. Your self, your experience, your life, has total value and relevancy for you personally and subjectively, but the actual fact is that it does not have any bearing at all on our understanding of what Christianity
is. And it seems apparent, to me, that you struggle to make the distinction. An obvious error of subjectivity.
Yes, raised through Catholic school system, I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need. Since then, and with regards to the Catholic stance on homosexuality and contraception, they can shove it.
What I notice is the sense of personal defense. Something emotional. But what you say is oddly lopsided. I will try to explain.
Catholic doctrine is involved, voluminous, expounds on all different topic related to social and spiritual life, and thus is a great deal more than your mere reduction and a strangely self-centered statement:
I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need. You have said nothing really, and you give evidence of having no familiarity with the doctrines of Catholicism, except in a very superficial sense. I do not think the larger, doctrinal position of Catholicism or Christianity generally, sets its goal as "accepting people for who they are". This is the first notable error. I do not want to harp on this too much but it is quite important. If anything at all (if you take the words of the Gospel as having validity) the figure Jesus Christ proposed *perfection* as an object. That could very well mean establishing dissatisfaction with 'the way we are' as a beginning step. Catholicism establishes a mountain to climb, in fact, where the individual is molded and constructed by personal work.
I would venture to say that in this statement that you made, that you demonstrate something that tradicional Catholics point to when they criticize the effects of Vatican ll. They say that by changing the focus from an ideal demand to 'accepting people as they are' the mission of Christianity was substantially altered. I do not expect that you know much about this because, as I suggest, you are far
on the outside of these issues and concerns.
The other point -- concerning charity -- is also highly relevant. According to a more sound Catholic doctrine (than your version of it) you can only be charitable if you are actually serving higher levels of truth. And one must have made decisions about what those higher levels
are. They are, in fact, extremely demanding. And I say this as one who has been reading such material for about a decade now. I am not "pulling this out of my ass".
But defining what the 'object' of spiritual and religious life actually is, is a fraught endeavor in our confused and rebellious present. (Personally, I am more or less certain of this). So the actual question is "What is charity?" It is not 'accepting people as they are if they are not grounded in truth. And you certainly are aware that there is a great deal of debate about what
is true today! My impression of you is that you could not enunciate what the Christian/Catholic project in relation to the individual actually is. I base this on reading
what you write. You are, therefore, like so many of us, a post-Christian and also a post-Catholic. But the chances are high that you will take this not as a "constructive criticism" but as an invitation to do battle (with your subjectivity).