Philosophy

Hubert Lederer Dreyfus (b. Oct 1929) is an American philosopher and professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. He has contributed much to the interpretation and analysis of Heidegger's philosophy. In recent times, his choice of an experience-based epistemic methodology has tended more towards a very pluralistic, anti-nihilist view; in fact, a reveling in Homeric polytheism as an inspiration for modern, revisited, or neo-polytheism. https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/1Q2Fsnj49GI&source=uds In Epistemics of Divine Reality , the conflict between reason and experience in the history of  the philosophy of religion has been identified. The conflict usually results in reason's tending to expel the empirical categories and choose a very metaphysical and, usually, monist or via negativa view of God. On the other hand, it also results in experience's tending to expel the rational categories and choose a very concrete, plural, this-wordly view of self and th...

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT basically argues that to have the concept of "God" (even to use the term "God") and to assert the existence of God is the same thing. For Anselm, therefore, who first formulated the argument, the person who denies the existence of God is a fool; for using the very term "God" implies asserting God's existence; so, the denial is self-contradictory. Anselm, Descartes, and in recent times Plantinga have employed various versions of the ontological argument. Whatever be the version, the general progress of an ontological argument is from the rational to the real. The two main versions, namely the analytical (that predicates existence to the concept of God) and the modal (that conceives of divine possibility as actuality) attempt to prove that the denial of divine existence is logically self-contradictory; for if the concept of God is possible, then His existence must of necessity be actual, they hold. An important critique was made...

The existence of religion and culture can be both claimed and denied at the same time. In the claim that religion exists, one only uses the term "religion" to identify a group of things that are like each other. It is not necessary that every "religion" within the group will have elements that agree with another "religion" in the group. For instance, A may have some similarities with B and B may have some similarities with C; however, this doesn't necessitate that A has elements that are similar to C. To argue that would involve an invalid categorical argument. For instance, "Christians and Muslims believe that Abraham was a Prophet, Muslims and Jews consider the swine unclean, Therefore, Christians consider the swine unclean", doesn't necessarily follow. Also, to deny the existence of religion just because one cannot find its essential soul is to only affirm a paradox. For instance, take the argument for the denial of the car which says ...

From Epistemics of Divine Reality , © 2007, 2009, 2011. (Available in Lulu, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, & Ibookstores) Rational Fideism and Divine Reality The results show that divine reality cannot be known except through a revelation of itself. For this to be possible, divine reality must at least be personal and concerned. Further, a knowledge of divine reality must not be either purely rational (in the sense that the rational attributes [1] are the divine attributes) or empirical (in the sense that the empirical attributes [2] are the divine attributes). If it is purely rational, then it would mean the negation of the empirical, as demonstrated by the arguments of both Zeno and Gaudapada. If it is purely empirical, then it would mean the negation of the rational, as demonstrated by the theological positions of animism, polytheism, pantheism, and panentheism; and the non-theological positions of skepticism, logical positivism, and mysticism. A rational fideistic epistemics of ...

1 . The Problem of Evil is a problem that relates to Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Ethics & Politics, Soteriology, and Eschatology, chiefly; then, also to the other doctrines. Therefore, its solution is pivotal. 2. Any theology that claims to be systematic, but fails to address the Problem of Evil sufficiently is severely defective. It cannot be systematic; and if it is, its foundations are weak. 3. Any Systematic Theology that relegates the Problem of Evil to the realm of mysteries is a blank theology. 4. To unstrap the Problem of Evil is to touch the heart of reality; to feel the heartbeat of God. The brow of Prince Siddhartha wrinkled up in deep pondering. He thought hard, and forgot the world around – all the whisperings of servants, chirpings of birds, and the presence of his wife nearby. The four scenes that he had recently seen occupied his thoughts as the dusk turned into the dark night. Sickness, decay, and death on one hand and the tranquility of the ascetic on the o...

From The Republic And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes. It follows therefore that the good is not the cause of all things, but of the good only? Assuredly. Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men.  For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him. That appears to me to be most true, he said.

by Domenic Marbaniang [1] There are three chief epistemological approaches to the study of God, namely, the rational approach, the empirical approach, and the revelational or Sabdic approach. Neither the rational approach nor the empirical approach is theologically effective; it is only through a subjective urge of faith and a rational fideistic appropriation of revelation that one can ever come to know God. The rationalist tradition only leads to a monistic view of divine reality. This is so because with the expulsion of empirical categories, reason is left with nothing other than its own features of unity, transcendence, immutability, universality, and necessity. Thus, one sees in Zeno’s paradoxes that there is a seeming contradiction between the results of rational analysis and that of experience. Zeno showed that plurality and mobility of experience is rationally impossible. In the India peninsula, Gaudapada of the Advaita tradition (8 th century AD), showed through analysis of ...

Just went through a few videos on YouTube that relate stories of how Daniel Everett, a Linguistics professor and former Christian missionary  to the Piraha tribe of Brazil, got deconverted after reflecting on their worldview. Below is the BBC reading from his book Don't Sleep There are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3q6Cid1po?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360] An excerpt from his lecture explaining the metaphysics and epistemics of Piraha culture : [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKb7bNMQ9Ao?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360] Now to the Epistemic Issues: 1. I hold no reserves with regard to this first premise that a missionary is always going to be in danger if his connection with the supernatural is not proper. I intend no accusation. But, Jesus made it clear to the disciples not to venture out till they were baptized with the Spirit. If I'm not so sure of my position, I have no rights t...

© Domenic Marbaniang, December 19, 2007. ‘The sense of the world must lie outside the world,’ said Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). [1] The human problem is seeking sense of the world within the world or within one’s own self. But can man go beyond himself by himself? Can someone lift himself up by pulling up his bootstraps? The epistemic predicament of man has been just that in several cases: when he started from himself or nature he returned to himself or nature, to the extent that ‘man is the measure of all things’ was reflected in all his cogitations on man, God , and the world. A glance at monism, polytheism, materialism, and pantheism [2] will demonstrate all that man can do to limit ultimate meaning to this-worldly-reality. This has also been true of Christian theology several times. The rational entanglements of scholastic theology in attempts to rationalize revelation, and the empirical obsessions of liberal, process, existential, and charismatic theologies reflect the s...

PROBLEM: The so-called paradox of the stone asks: "Could God (Who is omnipotent) create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?" If so, then He cannot be omnipotent; if not, then He is not omnipotent. ANSWER: The comparative "heavier" doesn't apply to infinity; therefore, the question is contradictory and, consequently, meaningless. 1. Infinity is that which is without a beginning, a middle, and an end. Therefore, internal comparisons don't apply to it. 2. Only a greater infinite can supercede an infinite; but, "a greater infinite" is a meaningless category, since infinite is the maximal superlative. Domenic Marbaniang, July 2010

Man's attempt to understand himself and his world around him can be divided into three ways: 1. The way of authority. Much of what we know is based on this secondary source of information. Newspapers, books, teachers, TV shows, social consensus, religious authority, Scriptures, etc are few examples of this. We have epistemic value tags for any given source claiming authority of knowledge. For instance, one might rate a popular newspaper as more credible than a not-so-popular newspaper. Some Indian schools of philosophy do not consider it right for Scriptural revelation to be treated at par with these other secondary sources (some even consider authority as subject to the way of reason for including interpretation, which is a way of reasoning). 2. The way of experience. This refers to sense-experience and also includes the mystic experience in the Indian philosophical classification (the word pratyaksha refers to direct or immediate perception). 3. The way of reason. Arithmetic a...

‘The sense of the world must lie outside the world,’ said Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). The human problem is seeking sense of the world within the world or within one’s own self. But can man go beyond himself by himself? Can someone lift himself up by pulling up his bootstraps? The epistemic predicament of man has been just that in several cases: when he started from himself or nature he returned to himself or nature, to the extent that ‘man is the measure of all things’ was reflected in all his cogitations on man, God, and the world. A glance at monism, polytheism, materialism, and pantheism will demonstrate all that man can do to limit ultimate meaning to this-worldly-reality. This has also been true of Christian theology several times. The rational entanglements of scholastic theology in attempts to rationalize revelation, and the empirical obsessions of liberal, process, existential, and charismatic theologies reflect the segregated pursuits of two different epistemic streams ...