Presuppositional apologetics

[essentialsaltes]

Well, I was speaking in the context of Western thought, which I believe 3/4 of your list apply.

If that's the level of relatedness, then Christianity is also the same, and this presuppositional stance would be self-undermining.

Even Buddhism was eventually subsumed into the Great Convo...no?

Sorry, I don't think Buddhism 'graduated' to become part of what we mean by Western Thought, if that's what you're suggesting.

 

[Tone]

If that's the level of relatedness, then Christianity is also the same, and this presuppositional stance would be self-undermining.



Sorry, I don't think Buddhism 'graduated' to become part of what we mean by Western Thought, if that's what you're suggesting.

Not really. Presuppositionalism is all about peeling back the layers so that one is aware of what they believe on autopilot.

"Friedrich Nietzsche admired Buddhism, writing that: "Buddhism already has - and this distinguishes it profoundly from Christianity - the self-deception of moral concepts behind it - it stands, in my language, Beyond Good and Evil." Nietzsche saw himself as undertaking a similar project to the Buddha."
Buddhism and Western philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What is your base for your stance?

You begin from yourself right?

If by stance you mean my philosophy, I've already answered. I begin with the recognition that existence exists as an Objective absolute.

 

[Tone]

If by stance you mean my philosophy, I've already answered. I begin with the recognition that existence exists as an Objective absolute.

"I begin". That's the only phrase we really need, it is subject to you--as my worldview is to me.

 

[Tone]

"I begin". That's the only phrase we really need, it is subject to you--as my worldview is to me.

Presuppositionalism will explore where you begin, why you begin there, and then see if it is consistent with where you should be existentially based on the aforementioned.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Presuppositionalism will explore where you begin, why you begin there, and then see if it is consistent with where you should be existentially based on the aforementioned.

They don't need to explore to know where I begin because I explicitly state it. I start with the fact that existence exists, a primary and irreducible fact. Now the only alternative to existence as one's starting point is nothing. Now why start with nothing when we know that existence exists? Blank out.

And I'm certain that existence is consistent with where I should be existencially.

 

[Tone]

where I begin because I explicitly state it. I

How objective is that?

 

[Tone]

why start with nothing when we know that existence exists?

Didn't you say (maybe not) that one can't know what anything is without considering its opposite?

So, how is it said that existence exists, if nothing doesn't?

I know, a bit if a rabbit trail...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Do you know of any concrete way to tie down the accurate usage of the word Faith in the scriptures, and how it might contrast with how people use the word today? Recently the best that I came across was a 13th & 14th century AD English definition. I mostly find that the word today is used to mean an absence of evidence, but something is off about that meaning because we have Biblical characters who are credited with having legendary amounts of faith yet they had way more proof of God than any of us do today.

And it is also sometimes said by a person “A deeper study of scripture strengthened my faith.” More knowledge increased the person’s faith. Well that wouldn’t make sense if faith means absence of evidence, in that case it would make more sense if someone were to say “My memory really sucks and I forgot my reasons for believing in God, but since I still believe in God it means that my faith is much stronger now.” And Faith meaning absence of evidence wouldn’t make sense in science & engineering either since the most knowledgeable person who designed a sturdy bridge would have the most faith in it because her knowledge of its sturdiness was the greatest! The different ways that the word is used are contradictory.

Edit -
On second thought there could be no contradiction if I let Faith in all circumstances mean “It has my full confidence.” So that person A can say “It has my full confidence because I know so much about it” and person B can say “It has my full confidence even though I know almost nothing about it” and both would be using the word properly. However if that’s true then the word Faith would become too ambiguous to use as a critique against someone’s believing in something.

The English word 'faith' is one of those words that descend from the Church concept, but has changed quite a bit - akin to the word religion in a way, which originally referred to being bound to Orders.

You should not look to English prescriptive definitions, but to the concept and usage it is supposed to represent. This is the concept of Christian Faith, which translates the Greek Pistes of the NT. This is a very different animal indeed. For Greek Pistis does mean 'faith', or trust, or what is reliable. It has been translated as guarantee. It is essentially a surety.

Pistes is related to the principle of the Logos, or the innervating principle of the Cosmos (or in Christian terms, God the Son in the manner how God acts in creation or how God is 'knowable' or incarnated therein). Logos is where we get logical from, meaning there is Reason to it. In a greater sense, Pistes, or more notably in Roman Fides, it has a sense obligation, or staying true - hence English Fidelity. So we could have faith in the sun rising, as the gods or the logos had set its course.

In fact, pistis was often used to describe something you were convinced of, that you hold to be true therefore, and in that way it entered the realm of the epistemological. Based thereon, it came to be this modern form which means both what you accept as axiomatically true, as well as often what argument you think is stronger - and also disparaged, as if held in spite of evidence. It was also a mechanism of oratory, to convince.

The latter is not a good fit for the Christian concept though. CS Lewis called Faith the art of holding on to what you believe in spite of changing moods. It is related to your reasoning faculty, as a conduit whereby your reason controls your passions. Thomas Merton said that you only reach faith through reason, and then faith takes over, but you must first struggle there. In Dante, Virgil represents human Reason leading Dante to Beatrice/Grace - he cannot enter paradise, does not become Faith as well, but hands over at its gates. Faith is a surety, a guarantee in Jesus to those who embody Him; it is becoming a Christ, allowing the Logos to work through you, to control the passions or spirit in line with the Reason/Will. It still has that sense of obligation, of keeping the Faith in spite of the attempts of the World.

Christian Faith is assent to, or acceptance of, Christ. Faith in Jesus means to trust in Him. The concept is only very loosely connected to the quotidian usage of the term, I feel. It can mean that you were sufficiently convinced, or it can be axiomatically taken 'on faith', but that is a circumferential idea around it that gets confused with the concept itself. You must acquiesce to follow Jesus and then keep faith, both an obligation on you and a guarantee or promise from God, but the primary sense here is certainly not an epistemological one - except perhaps in Jesus as the way, the Truth, and the life.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Didn't you say (maybe not) that one can't know what anything is without considering its opposite?

So, how is it said that existence exists, if nothing doesn't?

I know, a bit if a rabbit trail...

No that wasn't me. The concept of non-existence has no independent meaning, it only has meaning because the concept of existence has meaning. Non-existence means the absence of existence and it can not be given a positive definition. It's kind of like the concept unmarried, would have no meaning if the concept marriage didn't exist. The reason it can be said that existence exists is because it does, and we're aware of it and we form the concept existence to denote all of it, everything that exists.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

How objective is that?

As objective as you can get. because I'm literally starting with the objects of consciousness. Where do you think the concept objective comes from? It pertains to the objects of consciousness and their relationship to the subject (the knower). I start by looking outwards not inwards to my imagination. Besides without some perceptual data of objects my imagination would have nothing to work with.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

because I'm literally starting with the objects of consciousness.

“Objects” plural?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

“Objects” plural?

Yes. By object, I mean anything we perceive or consider just as the temperature of the air is an object that I perceive. Or Gravity, or a star in the sky or the wind in my hair, or in the case of this thread, presuppositionalism. These are all objects of consciousness.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes. By object, I mean anything we perceive or consider just as the temperature of the air is an object that I perceive. Or Gravity, or a star in the sky or the wind in my hair, or in the case of this thread, presuppositionalism. These are all objects of consciousness.

So things that might not exist?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I am not sure what your question is. So things that might not exist what?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am not sure what your question is. So things that might not exist what?

You would say that gravity absolutely exists?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You would say that gravity absolutely exists?

Of course, I perceive it directly.

 

[Tone]

As objective as you can get. because I'm literally starting with the objects of consciousness. Where do you think the concept objective comes from? It pertains to the objects of consciousness and their relationship to the subject (the knower). I start by looking outwards not inwards to my imagination. Besides without some perceptual data of objects my imagination would have nothing to work with.

Who's consciousness?

 

[Tone]

the objects of consciousness

So, "the objects of consciousness" is existence?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So, "the objects of consciousness" is existence?

I've already answered this. Existence is the realm of things that exist. Consciousness is the faculty that perceives that which exists. The things which you perceive are the objects of your consciousness. The objects of consciousness exist and are what they are and do what they do whether you perceive them or not. They are absolutes. Their existence is not dependent on your perception of them but your perception of them is dependent on their existence and yours.