tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2984312446057999411.post6864392218285320701..comments2023-06-25T08:47:47.358-05:00Comments on Sioux City Deacon Formation: Models of Revelation 10Deacon Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04773422293103065041noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2984312446057999411.post-22623858709810613572010-07-28T08:31:58.886-05:002010-07-28T08:31:58.886-05:00Yes. Kant himself tried to contain the implicatio...Yes. Kant himself tried to contain the implications, but post-Kantian philosophy has mostly tended to push his epistemological argument to conclusions in other areas. So, Nietzsche's nihilism, Freud's agnostic pschologizing, Sartre and Heidegger's existentialism, Jung's mythologizing, Dewey's American utilitarianism, etc., etc., all depend on Kant's denial of noumenal knowledge.<br /><br />There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference in anthropology here: if man is primarily defined in reference to something outside of himself (God, or even just an objective human nature), certain truths must obtain in the moral and social life. But, if man is primarily defined only in reference to himself, these social and moral truths are ultimately indefensible as truth. At best, they can be defended only as culture, that it, as a choice. There is no grounds for arguing that this choice is objectively "better than" any other choice.<br /><br />The same, then, is true with respect to religion. If there is nothing knowable outside of man, then all religion is equally "made up" and there is nothing to choose between them. In this sense, you're absolutely right that there's no point in having spiritual senses, because they can do nothing objectively. At best, they can allow us to articulate religious experience, which itself is entirely subjective, having reference only to the self.Deacon Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04773422293103065041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2984312446057999411.post-83608338966967295912010-07-27T19:30:24.505-05:002010-07-27T19:30:24.505-05:00If I understand your answer correctly, the Kantian...If I understand your answer correctly, the Kantian influence seems to have a serious implication for what it means to be human (philosophical anthropology) and not just what we can know (epistemology). In what you've described above, as I understand it, there's not much point in even having spiritual senses.Ceciliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467610065445378733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2984312446057999411.post-15208267713793119822010-07-27T14:08:05.420-05:002010-07-27T14:08:05.420-05:00I think some of the thinkers who use "imagina...I think some of the thinkers who use "imagination" in this context probably intend something more like the classic spiritual senses; but given the barrier of Kant etc., it ends up in practice looking more like classical fantasy. I mean, if it's true that the noumenal isn't knowable, then it's not knowable also by non-discursive reason, and what your spiritual senses are grasping at is not spirit, but just another form of fantasy.Deacon Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04773422293103065041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2984312446057999411.post-60275362161190656512010-07-27T13:18:49.764-05:002010-07-27T13:18:49.764-05:00Question: Does the term imagination used above (10...Question: Does the term imagination used above (103) refer to the common, contemporary meaning for what's classically called fantasy? Or does it have the classical meaning, referring to the spiritual senses? Seems like it must be the current popular meaning.Ceciliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467610065445378733noreply@blogger.com