tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post6385054736358365097..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: The Answer and Its Perennial Search for Good QuestionersGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56817932379105191642012-08-07T12:25:57.623-07:002012-08-07T12:25:57.623-07:00@EbonyRaptor - it's my pleasure. To be honest,...@EbonyRaptor - it's my pleasure. To be honest, I often find it difficult to follow the Thomistic arguments very closely (not sure if that's a male/female thing, or if I'm simply not bright enough), but every now and then he posts something that resonates so well that I am glad to struggle through his more challenging posts.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-63451603366273570152012-08-07T08:50:43.870-07:002012-08-07T08:50:43.870-07:00There is of course the other problematic tendency ...There is of course the other problematic tendency - the one to create mystery where it doesn't exactly exist. It is for instance one reason why agnosticism can be irritating -- to pretend that we just don't know or can't know about higher power(s) is in some ways absurd! <br /><br />In any case, we know the right answers because they generally give rise to new questions rather than closing off the space of knowledge. <br /><br />While from an agnostic position it may seem more 'open' to consider whether God exists or not to be a mystery, when one sets upon the notion - upon the experience even - of his objective existence - it definitely destroys that mystery. But it then raises a whole lot of other questions - more questions that are harder to answer - just like the acceptance of the Christ does, indeed.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12211304994701513822012-08-07T07:06:17.229-07:002012-08-07T07:06:17.229-07:00I've been reading Bob off and on for years but...I've been reading Bob off and on for years but have not ventured into the the Comments section until recently ... late to the party as usual. I'm happy I finally did. I arrived just in time to experience the William that Bob has mentioned in some posts and yet did not have to suffer him through what must have seemed like an eternity to the rest of you, even though he was easily useful as an foil.<br /><br />That's a long winded way of saying I appreciate your commenters Bob as they not only enrich the dialogue, but also introduce me to other bloggers as Julie did yesterday with the link to Just Thomism - thanks Julie.EbonyRaptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02483546359869912858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70114992848513071492012-08-07T01:56:50.724-07:002012-08-07T01:56:50.724-07:00"Voegelin criticizes the so-called philosophe..."Voegelin criticizes the so-called philosopher who deforms himself "by adopting the belief that the truth of existence is a set of propositions" which are "demonstrably true and therefore acceptable to everybody.""<br /><br />This reminds me of those who believe that "consensus" equals truth.<br /><br />Hey, if enough people believe it there's gotta be something to it, right?<br />Especially if they include professors, scientists, politicians, journolists and celebrities.<br /><br />The collective badwagon appears more safe and it's certainly easier, since it doesn't require the individual to think for himself (indeed, individual thinking is discouraged and frowned upon).<br /><br />Oh goody, there's no need to study for the test! What a relief! <br />And who needs tests when they know everything anyway?<br /><br />And if someone questions the <br />con-senselessness they'll just circle the badwagons and fire.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79262538041268760812012-08-06T23:07:55.265-07:002012-08-06T23:07:55.265-07:00... running around in the drive-by shooting of the...... running around in the drive-by shooting of the other world view, posts like this help you pat down and confirm that you're all still there.<br /><br />And more.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28913102416092151792012-08-06T22:55:28.078-07:002012-08-06T22:55:28.078-07:00"Voegelin writes that "What is permanent..."Voegelin writes that "What is permanent in the history of mankind is not the symbols but man himself in search of his humanity and its order" (emphasis mine). Too often, I believe, we either conflate symbols that are distinct, or else distinguish symbols that are roughly equivalent."<br /><br /><br />Ahhhhhhh......mmmmhhhaaahhhhhh... that felt good.<br /><br />""The Logos has been operative in the world from its creation; all men who have lived according to reason, whether Greeks or barbarians, have in a sense been Christians" (Augustine said the same thing)."<br /><br />You know the movie gag, where there's a bunch of gunfire and then and then the guy jumps up and does a quick body check, touching and patting to make sure all his parts are there and without holes?<br /><br />Posts like this are like those internal probes from yesterday's sub-postlet,<br /><br /><br />"For me, the book is more of an experience, and I try to take advantage of the experiences that are provoked. It's like a tool or probe that pokes into one's own spiritual spaces. Once that happens, you drop the probe and check out the space."<br /><br />All there.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-73335795074934892042012-08-06T19:51:38.846-07:002012-08-06T19:51:38.846-07:00Amen to that.Amen to that.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76932134227300691712012-08-06T19:08:33.118-07:002012-08-06T19:08:33.118-07:00Even the person who doesn't believe in angels ...Even the person who doesn't believe in angels is very likely somebody's angel.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56391849300977542762012-08-06T19:04:01.132-07:002012-08-06T19:04:01.132-07:00I have seen philosophy gradually fade away between...<i>I have seen philosophy gradually fade away between my skepticism and my faith. </i> --Don ColachoGagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-41843729493036509522012-08-06T19:03:54.791-07:002012-08-06T19:03:54.791-07:00This angel business has been the most difficult fo...This angel business has been the most difficult for me to get comfortable with. I believe much of that has to do with the concept or word being more saturated than the word God (at least to me). The presence become more "tangible" the more I'm able to clear my mental images of them, or borrowed images. There may be angels as they are depicted in great art and valentine cards, but I know these have been blocking off the possibilities of others there behind them. I for one welcome our new upside down exclamation points.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13720790978632771716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-71449388872168673912012-08-06T18:51:10.037-07:002012-08-06T18:51:10.037-07:00" "The history of philosophy can be divi..." "The history of philosophy can be divided into two different periods. During the first, philosophers sought the truth; during the second, they fought against it."<br /><br />FYI, we're living through the second phase."<br /><br />According to the rest of your post (and I agree with the rest as well), this "sought vs fought" has been going on constantly. Maybe since for evers. Or at least for the evers that matter. Faith lives there.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13720790978632771716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-74434550347093320512012-08-06T14:39:20.138-07:002012-08-06T14:39:20.138-07:00Julie quoted...
"Because they are blinded by...Julie quoted...<br /><br />"Because they are blinded by the desire for the most definite and certain sort of evidence we can have of things..."<br /><br />Great points in the whole quote. This part in particular reminded me of a friend of a friend who in essence was doubting his faith. It seemed to be this endless quest for what would help him. It occurred to me that the solution was the nature to the problem itself -- faith by nature is... faith! To cross that divide is a leap without a "guarantee" or a "proof", except as noted many times in The Book, by the evidence within and without of the Holy Spirit Himself. The problem also touched on epistemology, as the kind of knowledge he sought (a proof of the validity of his faith) was the wrong kind for the question at hand. It was like lifting up a rock that had the appearance of a mysterious question and seeing the underside -- that it was that old, known point of what the whole thing is about! It is what so much effort is spent toward making clear - the struggle to NOT have profane guarantees. Oddly, it connects to when Jesus pointed out that even when they had Him right before them in the flesh, they still didn't see Him, so... there's also that. The answer I had for the guy was: You gotta have faith! Even faith that you have faith!Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16900344453710081874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79576291354048404242012-08-06T11:40:29.640-07:002012-08-06T11:40:29.640-07:00(¡) This symbol/pneumaticon you've created is ...(¡) This symbol/pneumaticon you've created is truly elegant. I can see the wings, the halo, and the robe... but the face is too dazzling to see... and is represented by a plain white background.glindforshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18415863553157684832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79368375642958232502012-08-06T11:22:26.872-07:002012-08-06T11:22:26.872-07:00The problem is that such an experiment can only de...<i>The problem is that such an experiment can only destroy the thing it would seek to give evidence for, for the same reason that a man who would experiment with his wife’s love is undermining the very thing he would seek to discover.</i><br /><br />Kind of a quantum uncertainty principle or a wave-particle form. You can have a faithful spouse by faith or know for certain your spouse is unfaithful.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-10214225815492778522012-08-06T11:16:40.729-07:002012-08-06T11:16:40.729-07:00Horizontal knowledge, because it is merely objecti...<i>Horizontal knowledge, because it is merely objective, requires no such introspection, assimilation, or transformation, because it's analogous to placing an object -- a fact or bit of knowledge -- into the space of the mind and filing it away somewhere.</i><br /><br />As a political aside, I have noticed that leftists really like to govern by micromanagment. Good bureaucrats -- that is, the ones good at making other people miserable -- focus on very small things. A "discussion" with a leftist almost always degenerates into a dozen rabbit trails of minutiae or anecdotes or minor hypotheticals. I am tempted to say that anyone who can genuinely grasp the big picture -- not just pretend to do so -- is going to be pro-liberty.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-67546405143933645792012-08-06T09:21:32.602-07:002012-08-06T09:21:32.602-07:00This post and yesterday's discussion have been...This post and yesterday's discussion have been excellent. I wish I could add any thoughts of my own, but for the moment I'm happy just to (barely) keep up. However, <a href="http://thomism.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/sermon/" rel="nofollow">this post</a> yesterday over at Just Thomism strikes me as being relevant to the discussion. And also just a good read:<br /><br />“The third reason, as I said, is a bit more obscure, but it speaks to what lies at the heart of the temptation, namely to put God to the test. To understand this, I helps to turn notice a story that recurs again and again throughout history - the basic plot is this: a man performs an experiment with his wife’s fidelity, either by pretending to be someone else and testing it or by letting someone else get in all-too-close quarters with her (variants of the story occur in the Greeks, it occurs in Don Quixote, and again in Cosi Fan Tutte). Now anyone who hears the setup knows that this will end badly – indeed it must end badly. But why do none of the husbands in the stories see this? Because they are blinded by the desire for the most definite and certain sort of evidence we can have of things: the evidence of an experimental trial. The problem is – and this is the moral of the story – that to reject the testimony of others and insist that we must see things for ourselves can destroy the very thing that we seek to see. If we will not take our wife at her word, then we will lose her altogether. If we demand that everything give us the clearest sort of evidence we can have, we will destroy the very evidence we would hope to find. This is, by the way, exactly the problem with those obscene and blasphemous “experimental trials” that seek to establish the efficacy of prayer. Such studies are ridiculous anyway, as many people have pointed out (how can we ever determine a group that isn’t being prayed for by anyone? Millions of people pray everyday for those who have no one to pray for them) but this absurdity is not what is fundamentally wrong with them. The problem is that such an experiment can only destroy the thing it would seek to give evidence for, for the same reason that a man who would experiment with his wife’s love is undermining the very thing he would seek to discover."juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.com