Hm, thank you, Sam. Much food for thought...we shall see if my spiritual stomach has the teeth for it: grass to cud to crud...the digestive metaphor has broken down too much...much like the food...okay I'm done. I once again admire the cohesion and consistency of your fundamental views. It is bound to have impact.
I share many insights with you. I prefer to come at it from the German angle (you fancy French scallywag posing as an Englishman!), as in Gadamer/Heidegger (or if we're being even better--always returning to earlier sources...--, though less sexier, Hegel's late Philosophy of Right): the fundamental linguistic and interpretative aspect of existence: the inevitably required interrogation of verstehen: our necessary negotiations with reality. So, I can never tell how far our insights about this feature of human existence differ in their conclusions, but I know I definitely agree with you on much there: we don't get to stand outside of ourselves. Also, I like the reference to Jacob's wrestling match with God/an Angel/a man, ergo Jacob receiving the name Israel ("God strives", or "one who strives with God and with man"). It's one of my favorite stories in the whole bible: I love the duality of humanity's perpetual dialectic of submission and striving being, simultaneously, an instance of God striving/submitting with us striving/submitting. I often have noted my penchant for striving at the expense of submission...ever-too Apollonian...too ready to err and put up a fight...oh Nicholas...
I think one of my fundamental curiosities is why one should call the noumenal or the Real 'God' or even begin to associate it with such a fraught concept and battled history. I don't really have a definitive opinion: I guess I reap ambiguity from ambiguity, not divinity. I should acknowledge my proclivity to skepticism about knowledge and agnosticism about reality that lends myself to a distaste for most claims about the noumenal, not yet even mentioning my preference against the usage of such a concept altogether (My attitude towards this part of me, though, is lighthearted. I've wanted to return to Kant's concept of the noumenal for awhile, as I developed the distaste for it from a taste for Hume and Berkeley.). Perhaps my inclinations toward Berkelian idealism, and my respect (but not assent for) dualistic philosophies of mind accounts for some of our fundamental disagreements too. But I do definitely have a religious reverence for many things and reverence for the religious. Once again, much to chew on, then chew on again. You will probably become too schmart for me too fast, but I'll catch up you stinky boy.
I'm glad to see my writing is edible - I can only hope it proves itself digestible. I appreciate my flamboyantly lengthy, clause-ridden syntax can be difficult to bite into, let alone chew all the way through.
I appreciate the Teutonic twist (and obligatory Hegel reference to appease Minerva's belligerence): I can't say I actually have an immense affinity for Derrida, if only because I find most of his work to be the repetition of a singular concept in myriad (confusingly written) contexts, as is typically the case for superstars in humanities academia, so I gather. But I do happen to think that singular concept is genius, and incontrovertibly true. As for the noumenal/God hesitation: I suppose it's a matter of reviewing what the big 'G' word has meant to the great thinkers of classical theism, and taking their conception if you agree with it. I find myself constantly having to clarify what I mean by that word to people who assume it must signify little more than a paternalistic superstition. But I also think it's worth the battle: it is the centre of most religion, after all, and for all of my particular idiosyncrasies of belief, I can allow myself the occasional laughable generalisation: I just think religion is true.
More specifically, in this case we have such an abundance of theologians* of all traditions who insist on God's 'noumenal' or 'transcendent' nature that I think we'd be remiss not to fight for that conception over and against the silly modern man-in-the-sky idea that often fuels the most infantile debate and tragically stupid violence.
*Such as your good friend Pseudo-Dionysius. I had secretly hoped you'd turn out with my views in this respect after your engagement with him; alas, I may have to wait in eager hope a little longer.
Hey Sam. I have a headache and did not really process most of the ideas you present in this post, but I do so admire the eloquence you put forth— there’s a beauty in language that is difficult to reveal when doing dense philosophy of religion this way, and you nail it every time. I will read this in more depth later. Also, Dr. Watson says hi. Best wishes from Illinois.
Hm, thank you, Sam. Much food for thought...we shall see if my spiritual stomach has the teeth for it: grass to cud to crud...the digestive metaphor has broken down too much...much like the food...okay I'm done. I once again admire the cohesion and consistency of your fundamental views. It is bound to have impact.
I share many insights with you. I prefer to come at it from the German angle (you fancy French scallywag posing as an Englishman!), as in Gadamer/Heidegger (or if we're being even better--always returning to earlier sources...--, though less sexier, Hegel's late Philosophy of Right): the fundamental linguistic and interpretative aspect of existence: the inevitably required interrogation of verstehen: our necessary negotiations with reality. So, I can never tell how far our insights about this feature of human existence differ in their conclusions, but I know I definitely agree with you on much there: we don't get to stand outside of ourselves. Also, I like the reference to Jacob's wrestling match with God/an Angel/a man, ergo Jacob receiving the name Israel ("God strives", or "one who strives with God and with man"). It's one of my favorite stories in the whole bible: I love the duality of humanity's perpetual dialectic of submission and striving being, simultaneously, an instance of God striving/submitting with us striving/submitting. I often have noted my penchant for striving at the expense of submission...ever-too Apollonian...too ready to err and put up a fight...oh Nicholas...
I think one of my fundamental curiosities is why one should call the noumenal or the Real 'God' or even begin to associate it with such a fraught concept and battled history. I don't really have a definitive opinion: I guess I reap ambiguity from ambiguity, not divinity. I should acknowledge my proclivity to skepticism about knowledge and agnosticism about reality that lends myself to a distaste for most claims about the noumenal, not yet even mentioning my preference against the usage of such a concept altogether (My attitude towards this part of me, though, is lighthearted. I've wanted to return to Kant's concept of the noumenal for awhile, as I developed the distaste for it from a taste for Hume and Berkeley.). Perhaps my inclinations toward Berkelian idealism, and my respect (but not assent for) dualistic philosophies of mind accounts for some of our fundamental disagreements too. But I do definitely have a religious reverence for many things and reverence for the religious. Once again, much to chew on, then chew on again. You will probably become too schmart for me too fast, but I'll catch up you stinky boy.
Love,
Nicholas
I'm glad to see my writing is edible - I can only hope it proves itself digestible. I appreciate my flamboyantly lengthy, clause-ridden syntax can be difficult to bite into, let alone chew all the way through.
I appreciate the Teutonic twist (and obligatory Hegel reference to appease Minerva's belligerence): I can't say I actually have an immense affinity for Derrida, if only because I find most of his work to be the repetition of a singular concept in myriad (confusingly written) contexts, as is typically the case for superstars in humanities academia, so I gather. But I do happen to think that singular concept is genius, and incontrovertibly true. As for the noumenal/God hesitation: I suppose it's a matter of reviewing what the big 'G' word has meant to the great thinkers of classical theism, and taking their conception if you agree with it. I find myself constantly having to clarify what I mean by that word to people who assume it must signify little more than a paternalistic superstition. But I also think it's worth the battle: it is the centre of most religion, after all, and for all of my particular idiosyncrasies of belief, I can allow myself the occasional laughable generalisation: I just think religion is true.
More specifically, in this case we have such an abundance of theologians* of all traditions who insist on God's 'noumenal' or 'transcendent' nature that I think we'd be remiss not to fight for that conception over and against the silly modern man-in-the-sky idea that often fuels the most infantile debate and tragically stupid violence.
*Such as your good friend Pseudo-Dionysius. I had secretly hoped you'd turn out with my views in this respect after your engagement with him; alas, I may have to wait in eager hope a little longer.
Thank you for reading and engaging, as always.
All my love,
Sam
Hey Sam. I have a headache and did not really process most of the ideas you present in this post, but I do so admire the eloquence you put forth— there’s a beauty in language that is difficult to reveal when doing dense philosophy of religion this way, and you nail it every time. I will read this in more depth later. Also, Dr. Watson says hi. Best wishes from Illinois.
Sorry to contribute to the headache! Thank you as always. And hello Dr. Watson!!