A table built with four legs

Being a Theist, and joined at the hip to the gospels of the Nazarene is a personal choice (even though I’m not a religious man, in terms of “groupthink”) which I never attach any personal self-rightness too, as I know what a fool I am, as well as knowing what fools we all are, here on this rock; again, my own personal opinion – period; my own path; my own decisions. With limited tools to work with – in terms of our senses and their extremely restricted capabilities to perceive the world around us, as it actually is – I firmly believe it takes serious Philosophy, hard Science, sane Theology, and profound Art to even “begin” to scratch the surface of this existence, with these sensorial limitations at hand – let alone, behave in a manner which allows us to embrace this hard life in a loving way. In turn – to me – serious Philosophy, hard Science, sane Theology, and profound Art are all imperative.

Max Scheler states it in this way:

“A philosophy which fails to recognize and a priori denies the claim to transcendence which all non-logical acts make, or which allows this claim only in the case of acts of thought and those acts of intuitive cognition which furnish the material for thought in the domain of theory and science, condemns itself to blindness to whole realms of facts and their connections, for access to these realms is not essentially tied to acts of mind proper to the understanding. A philosophy of this sort is like a man who has healthy eyes and closes them and wants to perceive colors only with his ear or his nose!”

We seem to be entering a time when taking a saw to any of the four legs holding up the table we eat from, may prove to be unreasonable, even detrimental. One can always choose which leg, or legs, we place most our personal weight, knowing these choices are made thru our own combination of experience, biology, psychology &c. The beauty lies in decisions made, in a chaotic world, with these limited tools, for navigating such turbulent waters.

Peace

Advertisements

For my philosophically minded friends:

An argument directed at Jordan Peterson, and postmodern philosophy today. I’d be very interested in feedback pertaining to this video, and its! content. Video one hour.

Primary Text Sources–
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish
Jean Baudrillard – The Transparency of Evil
Jacques Derrida – On Grammatology
Peter Sloterdijk – A Critique of Cynical Reason
Richard Rorty – Achieving Our Country
Richard Rorty – Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity

So much of popular political argument is nested in tiny fragments extrapolated from fine thinkers whose works are taken apart, and “parts” utilized for whatever arguments are being brought forth, without so much as any serious investigation into said sources works; that are being hacked for the purpose of whatever agenda might be at hand by the hacker. This video is a fine example; a one hour argument properly being brought forward in both an intelligent and respectful manner from one individual, directed toward a bright light (in my opinion) in today’s town square (Jordan Peterson). For me the arguments hold water, and also has flaws, but the manner in which it’s presented should be a fine example how healthy, well thought arguments, can be presented.

%d bloggers like this: