Radical Traditionalism

[Kenneth R.]

and therein lies the dilemma. from my perspective the objectivity comes from God. thus morality is based on logic. from yours it is not, and neither will accept the other's position.

 

[Demiurge]

and therein lies the dilemma. from my perspective the objectivity comes from God. thus morality is based on logic. from yours it is not, and neither will accept the other's position.

Ultimately, a claim derived of faith(that God as you understand him exists, that spiritual world is as you think it is, etc.). None of that can be proven by pure reason.

 

[Kenneth R.]

and that is why i have stated many times it must be thought of in a rational manner whenever possible, but logic cannot alone be used in such circumstance

 

[Demiurge]

and that is why i have stated many times it must be thought of in a rational manner whenever possible, but logic cannot alone be used in such circumstance

So, when I asked proceed from what, the answer was a metaphysical supposition, which can be said to possess indeterminable attributes. It(He, them) could be like nearly anything or like nothing we know at all. Even conceding the being of some such entity for the sake of the discussion, what it is...could be nearly anything.

 

[Kenneth R.]

So, when I asked proceed from what, the answer was a metaphysical supposition, which can be said to possess indeterminable attributes. It(He, them) could be like nearly anything or like nothing we know at all. Even conceding the being of some such entity for the sake of the discussion, what it is...could be nearly anything.

from my perspective it is not unknown as i am confident who it(he, them) is.

 

[Demiurge]

from my perspective it is not unknown as i am confident who it(he, them) is.

Okay, you've conceded the argument by acknowledging it as ultimately perspectival, as opposed to grounded firmly in "logic." The latter, I might add, has replaced God in so far as it's bandied about to justify virtually everything by mere association. Any question of why is responded to by "because it's logical." It has come to have no meaning and must be rigorously exposed.

If you need me to say it another way, your starting point is internal and conditional. You see it that way, but it's not necessary for me to, as my disagreement is indicative of no logical incongruity.

 

[infoterror]

and therein lies the dilemma. from my perspective the objectivity comes from God. thus morality is based on logic. from yours it is not, and neither will accept the other's position.

If objectivity comes from God, there had better be a direct, replicatable link to God, or you're going to qualify as insane. E.g. there best be some phone you can pick up and talk to him; otherwise...

His position is logical, but he's arguing a different kind of logic; your logic is faith, his is structural analysis. I'm not against faith, but any faith or structural analysis that is divorced from the other is unsound, in my experience.

Note key last word.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i would agree with you.

 

[infoterror]

An interesting point to ponder: ultimately, Meister Eckhardt and whoever wrote the Rig Veda were channeling the same truth.

Christianity "in general" may have a ways to go before it catches up... and we all remember what happened to Eckhardt.