peripeteia

You Said: the observation of a thing and the thing itself is not the same

Note that Christianity, if that's what we're talking about, is not simply a "thing", but is a "thing" intended as a guide to living one's life, and only as such a guide. The application of Christianity (or any system intended as a guide to life) is the only reliable way to judge the worth of the system. If the evidence presented by the lives lived by Christians indicate it is not a particularly reliable way to lead a "good" life, whatever that is, then this speaks volumes about the "thing" called Christianity.

In other words, you cannot separate Christianity from its application. They are one and the same.


Alright since you honestly tried to be cordial I will do likewise and answer you accordingly..Please understand that I am forced to ‘apologize’ for the stupidities and absurdities of historic Christianity and frankly I hate doing it..This goes on for all the other lame ‘faiths’ out there.. Since you mentioned ‘things’ and ‘things’ again [hehe]: lets talk about such ‘things’..I will do so using phenomenology since it deals with ‘things’ itself[man I kill me--the rest probably know what philosopher I plagiarized]..


I will use Husserl to make my point [please tell me your familiar with him].. Although phenomenology predates Husserl, it is to him that it owes several of its central concepts: bracketing (epoche), eidetic reduction, and empathy (Verstehen). Husserl understands bracketing as the attempt for a value-free description where judgment is suspended. Eidetic reduction involves the reduction to essences where the essence of-----a religious system for example--- is determined and categorized. Husserl introduces the idea of empathy in order to underscore the observers’ need for sympathetic understanding in order to fully grasp the phenomena studied . Central to his philosophy is the distinction between intentionality (noesis) and its object (noema). Intentionality is not construed as somehow bound to the object of experience, i.e., the intentional object (noema) is not a component, or of the same order as the intentional experience (noesis). Intentionality is a correlation of the two and expressed in the creative activity that ensues; it is the former (noema) that phenomenology attends to study. And it is this principle I use to criticize you..

Think about it.. Your “thing” is subject to what? Im more of a postmodernist then anything else..What that means is what moral system will you allow me to use to criticize the brutalities of history..Look I wont make this a long dissertation because I neither have the inclination nor the audience for it..But mind telling me what ‘critical theory’ you will allow me, to demythologize such manifestations[pragmatism, universalism, meliorism] or will it be an eclectic confluence…You decide..

Look again im not saying that I disagree with you and feel no abhorrence for the inquisition or even think to mitigate the crimes of a Stalin or Hitler..But I do want to know why should I not take a Wiccan’s view over the ‘overman’[that’s Nietzsche by the way] atheism..And no i am not rehashing the age old dilemma of relativism overagainst absolutism..Hell i dont even believe in the terms nor the 'operational definitions' of there connotations.

Mageth

You Said: the observation of a thing and the thing itself is not the same

Actually, King Rat said that and I quoted him. Reading ability...

Alright since you honestly tried to be cordial I will do likewise and answer you accordingly...
...
[man I kill me--the rest probably know what philosopher I plagiarized]
...
I will use Husserl to make my point [please tell me your familiar with him]..
...
[that’s Nietzsche by the way]



Your “thing” is subject to what?

What is my "thing" to which you refer?

As far as the rest of your post, I will use W.C Fields to make my point (please tell me you are familiar with him):

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

In other words, can you respond to my comments in your own words, without appealing to the authority of various philosophers, and without all the obtuseness?

My assertion: you cannot separate Christianity from its application. They are one and the same.

Again, I challenge you to respond in your own words sans the obtuse language and appeals to authority.

Cipher Girl

Methinks that peripeteia needs to remember the first rule of clear and effective writing: one's language should be simple and elegant, its purpose self evident. Actually, it's much easier to disguise muddled thinking with convoluted and unclear language than it is to clearly state one's point with a minimum of verbage.

peripeteia, perhaps you should go quickly to your local university and enroll in writing 101. You will be doing all of us here a favor.

Cipher Girl

peripeteia, O Verbose One, I actually managed to get through a few of your posts and have a couple of questions.

What in the hell does continental philosophy have to do with the OP? What in the hell does postcolonialism have to do with the OP? And why can't we write using clear and effective language about philosophy or theology?

I for one don't feel the need to try to hide my meaning from my reader by using convoluted language and arguments. Frankly the impression I get from reading your posts is that you come across as a fairly young person who is spouting back what they have memorized in a college class.

You know, there are web sites devoted to those like yourself who are handicapped by extreme verbosity and pomposity.
Effective Use Of Language is a good place to start.

Doctor X

Mageth:

Ellucidation into the True and Nice Nature and Meaning of:

Non sequitur et argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam at best. . .

. . . verbal diarrhea at worst. . . .

--J.D.

Mageth

Why, thanks, Doctor X. That's pretty much what I suspected.

peripeteia

Doctor X

Mind attempting such crap on a more formal basis..Some people here might enjoy your argumentum ad misericordium or even your argumentum ad populum but such crap bespeaks duplicitous distraction rather then your comprehension of the material..


And Mageth dont confuse yourself more then you actually are..Stand up for yourself and dont hide behind the dresses of others here..

Doctor X

Poisoning the Well

No argumentum ad misericordium was raised.

Incorrect again. A valid observation was raised. That it is an opinion shared by others remains the individual's error.

Poisoning the Well

Argumentum ad hominem and, given the individual's reliance upon these tactics, hypocritical

Rather seems I comprehended the "material" quite well. Thus:

Argumentum ad hominem with a dash of Poisoning the Well

The individual wishes to blame others for his incoherence. Not at all the behavior of a gentleman. . . .

--J.D.

peripeteia

Cipher Girl

Lets reason together shall we..Be so kind to look at some of my previous posts..What would you think my purpose would ‘hypothetically’ be when I presented all the continental junk as I did? Being a rational person..How would you extrapolate my intentions from texts presented to you. Not only my own but the ones I was dealing with..I made the mistake of mentioning something that I assumed was a little known..But I did it according to an objective..Now what can that be? Put on your thinking cap and lets see..And please don’t be flippant and plead total ignorance..

As for your little elegance and lucidity in writing..You probably like literature right? You know what Byron said of Keats style? I quote: “Such writing is a sort of mental masterbation,he is always frigging his imagination”..You get your kicks your way and let me get mine my way..And kiddo don’t prejudge my academic abilities..I would love to balance our perspective achievements and see what happens..Unless of course you enjoy embarking on the ‘negative capabilities’ [if you know romanticism this idea should be apparent] without the benefit of its phonomenality..Idealism will only get you so far. But alas, like everything else, solipsism has its adherents..

Sheeesh now im tired Good night everyone and sweet dreams..We well continue this tomorrow..

peripeteia

. .



Some people here might enjoy your argumentum ad misericordium. . . .

No argumentum ad misericordium was raised.
quote:

. . . or even your argumentum ad populum. . . .



Incorrect again. A valid observation was raised. That it is an opinion shared by others remains the individual's error.

Now humor me a little.. Why would you think I raised these ‘arguments’..Tell me does every argument predicated in a discussion assume the manifestation of it or can one resort to the ‘silences’ or ‘traces’ or perhaps lets use contemporary verbiage, the latent functions of the deferrals..The 'pity' and 'masses' joiners were merely meant to mitigate your lack of critique and not your actual disposal of them.. And since when did “” an opinion shared by others remains the individual's error””.

Argumentum ad hominem and, given the individual's reliance upon these tactics, hypocritical

Oh really..Look at when I bring out my ‘Hypocritical’ inclinations and when I produce explications for my statements..

Rather seems I comprehended the "material" quite well. Thus:

I wonder how well you actually comprehend the material..So far you have dealt with nothing besides the peripherals or liminals of the posts and not with the actual substance therein..



The individual wishes to blame others for his incoherence. Not at all the behavior of a gentleman. . . .

Oh really..How might I venture to ask am I blaming others..Open your eyes and look at what is actually written..The ‘incoherency’ is not because of alluded convolutions or obfuscations but merely a deficiency due to lack of knowledge..Tell me my friend are you familiar with Fredrick Jameson or perhaps Jean Luc Marion or perhaps Gayatri C Spivak [sheesh I hope I spelled this name right] I can give you a couple more but sadly im too tired and I might be accused of butchering the names..Anyway..Most of these people are required readings in the best universities out there and I don’t hear such crap spewed forth towards their writings..And think about it..Where do you believe I acquired such vocabulary, by reading Mackie or Nagel or Searle or Carnap or the other more popular philosophers? You decide..

Now really!!! good night..