Posted on 12/08/2002 12:25:26 PM PST by betty boop
Yes; but the most parsimonious explanation in this case would leave the universe inexplicable, because unintelligible.
That depends on what sort of explanation you're willing to settle for ;)
True enough, maro. But Socrates was never able to "teach" the Sophists...presumably because they did not share his "universe of discourse." The great divide between the two "camps" was that the Sophists insisted that "man is the measure of all things" (and thus generally went about telling people exactly what they wanted to hear in "high-blown language," for pay); whereas Socrates believed that the worthy man attunes himself to the divine measure. In many ways, the present dispute, so characteristic of our culture today, is a recapitulation of this most ancient one...and may well come to the same result.
For when the Sophist opponent realized Socrates had "beaten" him in debate, typically he had this nasty habit of going all surly, nasty on him.... That such men had long memories of grievance at the hands of Socrates accounts for the fact that Socrates was tried, convicted, and executed -- preeminently on the testimony of defeated adversaries (e.g., Anytus, Meletus) in debate....
I'll see what I can do about coming up with an "outline," since you express interest (might take me a while, though). Whether it will pass for philosophy, I'll leave it to you to judge.
One thing's for sure, Voegelin is not a "school philosopher," such as, for instance, the German Idealists: Unlike, say, Hegel, or even Kant, he wasn't a "system builder." I really don't know how to classify him -- he's been called a "philosopher of history," and an "historian of philosophy," among other things. I just think of him as a "philosopher of consciousness" or of "open existence" -- which IMHO would place him in the company of Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard (the latter two each in his own way), for examples.
Thank you for writing, maro.
I didn't create this mess, tpaine. I merely observe it.
Hi there general and betty. I was just listening in to the conversation and I hope you will pardon the interjection.
general, do you deny the reality of de se knowledge? Or do you think it right logically, from your world-view, that theoretically all knowledge, given the right circuitry, could be publicly accessible?
One remark I would like to make regarding revelation is that it is not mere private or subjective experience, although it is not exclusive of it. Revelation includes events in space/time history that are the subject of claimed eyewitness reportage. In other words, historical events are available to public scrutiny, and therefore transcend the circularity of reason alone.
Cordially,
Well at least they're historical observations, even if you think they're "smart-*ss."
BTW, I can't have "beaten" you in debate -- you have yet to participate, so how could I?
...revelation is ... not mere private or subjective experience, although it is not exclusive of it. Revelation includes events in space/time history that are the subject of claimed eyewitness reportage. In other words, historical events are available to public scrutiny, and therefore transcend the circularity of reason alone.
Great points, Diamond, and most welcome. Thank you.
general, do you deny the reality of de se knowledge? Or do you think it right logically, from your world-view, that theoretically all knowledge, given the right circuitry, could be publicly accessible?
Good question. I am hesitant to express a firm opinion, since this is essentially calling for my prognostication about what the future holds. As it stands now, I think that it is highly likely that there are things that we will never understand about the universe around us. This should not be taken as a reason to shut down and stop expanding the boundaries of what we know, however - if such a line exists, I do not know where it is. What I do know is that we aren't there yet. ;)
But this is a highly speculative position, of course. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that such a line, even if it exists now, will exist tomorrow. Who knows what tools and methods for examining the world around us will be available tomorrow, or in a hundred years, or a thousand? For all I know, God Himself has left His signature on the universe in such a way that the source is unquestionable and undeniable given the objective application of reason, but we simply don't have the tools to see it yet.
To give you a sort of understanding of the sorts of conceptual problems we have in dealing with the universe, the nearest star to us is 4.3 light-years away, give or take. That's about 7,854,437,234,000 miles. Now, although I can post that number, and we can all marvel at its size, it is plainly impossible to grasp the full meaning this sort of enormous distance in human terms - "human terms" just don't cover that sort of scope. If you tell me your house is a mile down the road, I have some sense of that distance from experience, and I understand the implications of "a mile". Or, if you tell me your city is about 500 miles from some other sort of city, I have some sense of that distance, and I understand the implications of that statement. But posting the number "7,854,437,234,000" does not give us a sense of just how enormously far that is. Grasping that sort of scope is not something our minds are attuned to do.
But, if someone invents that wonderful Star Trek warp drive tomorrow, such that the nearest star is twenty minutes away, that changes things radically. I have a very good conception of what "twenty minutes" means - I'm about a twenty minute drive from downtown, if the traffic is cooperating. Suddenly, that enormous and ungraspable distance has been rendered into human terms, and what seems to be incomprehensible is understandable. That doesn't mean I suddenly grasp how far 7,854,437,234,000 miles is, but it does mean that I don't really have to any more - I can sidestep that gap in my ability to conceptualize, given the right tools.
Which is why I hesitate to draw firm conclusions in this area. As it stands now, there is much we cannot understand. But I can't say what will be tomorrow. Whenever I am pessimistic about such things, I remind myself of what Faulkner once said - "I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail." So we shall have to wait and see. ;)
Revelation includes events in space/time history that are the subject of claimed eyewitness reportage. In other words, historical events are available to public scrutiny, and therefore transcend the circularity of reason alone.
True. Then the question becomes one of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Truly, I had no problem with letting it stand as you wrote it. I hate it when posts get pulled -- even those I disagree with, or otherwise "dislike."
Does this resonate with today's Lib vs. Conservative debate, or what? You beat the Libs, they get nasty. And it's a cautionary tale should the Libs ever achieve unchallenged authority and power in this culture. The Culture War is very real and it must be won by the Conservatives.
Agreed. Thanks for your reply. And even then the objective evidence is filtered through our respective colored glasses. It has been my experience, which I hope is (or should be) always regulated by Revelation, that fallen human nature in a perverse sort of way subjects revelation and all other historical evidence to it own criteria for the purpose of retaining independence and autonomy from the Creator. I think it is safe to say that it is the Christian point of view that in our natural state of alienation from God, we tend to reject evidence that interferes with our natural desire to remain independent of Him. As the old saying goes,
"A man convinced against his WILL
is of the same opinion still."
So when Saint Peter asserts that, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16) we can evaluate that historical evidence till we're blue in the face, but sometimes with regard to any particular individual it comes down to, not whether the evidence is sufficiently credible, (I believe it is, of course) but simply to the matter of whether or not that individual wishes remain independent of what God has said about the subject. In my view, since there is a Creator who has spoken, then it makes sense that His revelation of Himself is not subject to our criteria, we are subject to it. Circular? Maybe. But no less circular than the view of one who opposes the view. Just my two cents. Thanks again for your reply.
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.