*
On
Not Equating Logos with Logic
[or: Is
Mathematics Relevant to Philosophy?]
/ Subject
> Re: God talking in NT [#15] / 1March03 /
/ Ngz: alt.philosophy,
soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On Feb24 Bart Goddard
([email protected]) didst write:
> <snip> ... the
probability is 30% that we deists are correct.
> But, the plain
fact is, there is only ONE creation, and God
> is above it, and
we don't do probabilities when the random
> variable can't
vary. "Likely." Jesus is God or He isn't.
.
textman asketh:
So Jesus can't be a "divine-man" without also
being God? Because
this is a logical necessity, you say?
.
> <snip> God said
what He would do and He did it. Hundreds of
> lines of redefining
"is" and "logos" and "divine" and "lord"
.
And don't forget
the ever-elusive 'I AM'!
.
> and all that fol-de-rol
.
And 'Son of
God' and 'Son of Man' and 'Messiah' and 'apostle'
and 'slave' and 'brother'
and 'freedom' and 'prophecy' *AND*
most especially 'Spirit'.
Holy Lexicons, Batman! It seems that
we are all in very
desperate need of a new revised edition of
Thayer's 'Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament' that
makes the non-trinitarian
nature of the NT's language even
MORE apparent (eg.
theologically), and even MORE significant
and meaningful (eg.
philosophically).
.
> won't change the
plain promise given in the OT and
> announced in the
NT. The word games are just a trap.
> God said that _He_
would save us. Trust Him or not.
.
So you're saying
that God can't save us unless Jesus is
*also* God? So if
Jesus was "merely" a divine-man (ie. not a
half-man, half-god
hybrid) then the eternal and almighty God
would be utterly
helpless and powerless to save us? Are you
*sure* you're getting
all this from the scriptures? I trust
God and the Word,
but I think maybe you're getting this
'Jesus is God' dogma
from *other* sources. Check it out.
.
>>> Bart: Um ...
"divine" means "God".
.
>> tx: Not exactly.
Which is to say that the correspondence
>> is not as absolute
and straightforward as you suggest.
.
> Bart: Yadda
yadda yadda
> It had better be,
unless you want to convert to Hinduism.
.
Maybe in the
next life you'll come back as one of the sacred
rats in the holy
temple of the rat-god. Probability suggests
it's a fitting end
for most Christian-mathematicians! 
.
>>> So now you're
basing your doctrine on a wild _guess_ about
>>> what might have
happened. A guess based solely upon the
>>> presuppose "rightness"
of the doctrine that you already
>>> hold. There is
no credibility in that.
.
>> Certainly not.
Fortunately, you are wrong to dismiss this
>> "historical probability"
by calling it a wild guess. There
>> is nothing at
all "wild" about it, since identifying
>> additions and
changes to the texts in just this way is a
>> long accepted
procedure among the biblical sciences ...
>> Provided, that
is, that the method is true to the texts,
>> and NOT to some
external theological imperatives.
.
> It most certainly
is "wild", since you have absolutely no
> basis for assigning
a "probability" to the scheme. It is
> nothing but intuition.
And there is NO WAY that your
> intuition is not
completely governed by your theological
> imperatives.
.
Here indeed
is a key point where our thinking diverges. A
major fork in the
road, if you will. Bart holds the ludicrous
view that my "nothing
but intuition" (as he puts it) is
entirely determined
by my theology. This opinion demonstrates
how little friend
Bart knows about the offensive one; for
long-time prophet-phans
know very well that theology in
general dwells way
down in my list of priorities. Exegesis
before theology.
Critical evaluation before exegesis.
Comprehension before
criticism. etc
.
>> Yet you judge
what is or is not true or possible on the
>> basis of preconceived
notions and doctrines, do you not?
>> Is that not *how*
you derived the judgment that my textual
>> analysis is nothing
more than "a wild _guess_ about what
>> might have happened"?
... Be honest now.
.
> Easily enough.
I judged your analysis because I'm a
> mathematician and
your logic is horrible. Honestly.
.
Well now, friend
Bart, I can't say I like the sound of that
very much. In fact,
eye like it not at all! Now thou hast
raised up the fearsome
wrath of the cyber-prophet, and the
world doth tremble
as the painful fyr is poured out upon
thy thrice silly
head:
.
"The evidentness
of this defective kind of knowledge upon
which mathematics
prides itself ... results from the poverty
of its purpose and
the defectiveness of its material; it is
therefore of a kind
which philosophy must reject. The purpose
or concept of mathematics
is quantity. This is precisely the
non-essential, non-conceptual
relationship. The activity of
this kind of knowledge
occurs on the surface, does not touch
the thing itself,
nor the essence nor the concept, and there-
fore it gives no
comprehension. The material about which
mathematics offers
a nice treasure of truths is space and
unity ... But the
actually real is not something spatial as
considered in mathematics;
with such unreality as the entities
of mathematics neither
the concrete sensuous intuition nor
philosophy is concerned."
- - from 'The Phenomenology of the
Spirit' (1807) by
GWF Hegel
.
How do you
likes them apples, Herr Mathematician? 
.
But anyway,
in philosophy everything depends upon *HOW* we
think, rather than
on WHAT we think about. That is, how we
deal with the subject
matter (ie. whatever topic is there)
determines the strength
and persuasiveness of whatever
position or attitude
we happen to take, *and* the conclusions
that are reached.
Thus an attractive writing style (if present
in any given philosopher's
writings) is always secondary to
the logical movement
within any given line of reasoning. But
for some extremist-type
philosophers (pharisee-philosophers?
Descartes' grandchildren?)
logic is the only REAL philosophy;
for it is the only
real language of certainty. Or, to put it
another way, logic
is the only certain foundation of *all*
Science & Reason
& Philosophy!
.
Needless to
say, I do NOT take such an exalted view of "pure
logic". And perhaps
I can clarify for the reader somewhat my
general orientation
regarding this ticklish matter --> On a
recent episode of
the 'Survivor' show, they had the two tribes
split along gender
lines, and thus did the tribes face the
various tests and
challenges put to them. So okay. At one
point the challenge
involved a puzzle of the jig-saw variety,
and it was two ladies
facing off against (I think?) a computer-
analyst and an engineer.
Yes, the girls beat these hyper-
rational types on
the puzzle challenge; and they beat them
very decisively.
In fact, the women-folk made the macho team
look like a bunch
of boobs. Ha!
.
But I find
this puzzle-challenge business *very* most-curious
from a more philosophical
vantage point. Please answer the
following question:
Why did the supposedly smarter guys fail
the puzzle-test?
Was it kimmitt? Sorry; I mean: Was it kismet?
Or karma maybe? The
work of a vengeance-demon perhaps?
.
No, dear reader!
It was because the aggressive logic-driven
approach of "hard-science"
is *functionally inferior* to the
more receptive, unitive,
and gestalt-driven approach of the
ladies. Yes, logic
has its place, and its uses, but it is NOT
the only *right*
way of doing things . . .
.
>> I don't "deconstruct
its language". Rather, I analyze and
>> clarify and explain
and so on and so forth. It's all one
>> big happy package.
The cyber-prophet's first duty is to
>> show forth the
written Word as it truly is. Thus I dissect
>> and examine and
analyze and interpret and expound and etc.
>> What I don't do
is force the facts into some predetermined
>> mold that already
has all the answers and all the angles
>> covered. That's
what the scribes and pharisees love to do!
.
> Oh great, another
self-styled "cyber-prophet".
> A pseudo-intellectual
.
That's a "disenfranchised
pseudo-intellectual" to you, sir!
.
> who "dissects and
examines". Too bad that after you
> dissect the frog,
you can't put it together again.
.
The written
Word is made of a spiritual stuff, not of
living flesh. Never
thought of the bible as a frog before.
Wut? Does it eat
flies too?
.
> After you spread
the word "logos" all over the table,
> the word becomes
useless. -- Bart
.
Well Bart,
I don't think we're quite to *that* far point just
yet. The old Logos
still has a spark or two left, I'd say.
.
- the almost multi-minded one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "I'm lazy; you
know it. I'm ready for the second show.
Amazing thing growing;
Just waiting for the juice to flow.
You're so very picturesque.
You're so very cold. Taste's
like roses on your
breath; But graveyards on your soul."
-- lyrics from 'Blue
Turk' on 'School's Out' by Alice Cooper
x
+
/ Subject >
Re: God talking in NT [#16] / 14March03 /
/ Ngz >
soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.philosophy /
.
The Obscure Philosopher/1
.
"Among them Heraclitus the mocker, the reviler
of the mob, the riddler, rose up." -- Timon
.
>> On Feb8 textman
wrote: More Absurd Logos-Theology
>> "Listening to
the Logos rather than to me, it is wise
>> to agree that
all things are in reality one thing and
>> one thing only."
-- Heraclitus
.
> On Feb8 Matthew
Johnson replied: That was a mildly
> interesting quote.
But only a complete ignoramus would
> think that Heraclitus
meant the same thing with 'logos'
> as Christians do.
.
textman sayeth:
This criticism doesn't really carry much
weight with me, alas.
This is because what the pre (and post)-
Socratic Greeks made
of Heraclitus (c.540-480BCE) is not nearly
as important as what
we make of him today. Hegel says that "the
beginning is the
least formed, determinate, and developed, and
is the poorest and
most abstract, and the first philosophy is
the wholly general,
indeterminate thought, and the simplest,
while the newest
philosophy is the most concrete and profound.
One must know this
lest one seek for more behind the old
philosophies than
they contain" (from the 'History of
Philosophy').
.
So, for example,
when we turn to the surviving fragments
(ie. about one-hundred
*sayings* commonly classified as
'wisdom literature';
which, in our view, falls under the
more comprehensive
category of 'prophetic literature'),
we find "the obscure
philosopher" speaking rather plainly
about things like
'spirit', 'spark', 'logos', etc.
.
In other words,
all the chief elements of a functional and
post-modern Christian
philosophical-anthropology are to
be found already
(in seed form, as it were) in one man,
Heraclitus, as philosophy
was just breaking into the world.
So if Christians
fail to be impressed by a philosopher with
such astonishing
depth of vision, it is far more likely to
be due to their own
short-sightedness than to any supposed
faults in the philosopher
himself.
.
>> <snip> I'm
not trying to fool anyone about anything.
.
> So you say. But
that _is_ what deceivers say.
> So you fail to
be convincing.
.
Well golly,
I can't really convince anyone of *anything* IF
they are determined
NOT to be convinced. And even if someone
were willing, it
is the truth itself that will convince them,
Matthew, for nothing
convinces like the truth of things.
.
[snipsome rubbish]
.
>> So, for example,
a spiritual-giant such as
>> Heraclitus carries
as much authority with
>> me as the Hebrew
prophets do.
.
> And that shows
a serious failure to understand
> what is really
basic.
.
On the contrary,
it shows that what unites the prophets and
the philosophers
is more basic than what distinguishes them.
Consider this very
Heraclitus fellow. There are very few
commentators who
would not agree that "the brevity and weight
of his style are
incomparable" (J.Barnes, 'Early Greek
Philosophy', 1987,
p.107).
.
"The path up
and down is one and the same" (Heraclitus).
.
Yes, and there
are two things we may observe about this very
"incomparable" style.
Firstly, this is not at all a common
way of putting things
forth in acceptable literature of a
philosophical nature.
No indeed, because the vast majority
of philosophers do
NOT talk like this!
.
"You should
quench violence more quickly than arson." -- H
.
And secondly,
this way of speaking IS common in the biblical
texts. More specifically,
being brief and deep (or weighty)
is a characteristic
of prophetic literature in general. Thus
my view allows not
only Heraclitus to be included among the
prophets, but also
some who no one would ever accuse of being
a prophet. Someone
like, for example, Albert Einstein; who
is *also* quite partial
to brevity and weight in his style.
.
"Fire will
come and judge and convict all things." -- H
.
It should mean
a lot to believers that men such as this,
world-historical
individuals (as Hegel says), do indeed have
an important place
in the Faith. Not just in the history of
the Faith, but in
the living spirit of our living faith!
.
"To be temperate
is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is
speaking the truth,
and acting with knowledge in accordance
with nature" (Heraclitus).
.
Are we getting
through to anyone out there in the cold
dark depths of cyber-space?
... Are we ringing any bells?
.
We most certainly
hope so!
.
>> After all, the
idea that the universe is in process (ie.
>> constantly changing),
and that there is an underlying
>> Logos (order or
reason) to this process is still the
>> chief unspoken
assumption of all Science;
.
> And now you show
your failure to understand the philosophy
> of science. No,
this is _not_ "the chief unspoken assumption
> of all Science".
On the contrary: if there is any one "chief
> unspoken assumption
of all Science", it is that _despite_
> the change, there
is something constant and unchanging, a
> principle that
remains the same despite the change, and
> even _governs_
that change.
.
What you have
just given us here, Matthew, is a darn good
definition of the
Logos as this concept was developed by the
ancient Greeks (4X,
by the Stoics) prior to the Common Era.
.
> That, BTW, is what
Heraclitus seemed to never grasp. That is
> why Plato deserves
the high praise as the founder of Western
> philosophy, not
Heraclitus. For it was Plato who first
> expounded this
idea, which Aristotle then modified to become
> the principle of
almost all scientific advancement until
> Galileo refined
the experimental method.
.
I disagree.
The only reason that Plato is praised as the
father of philosophy
is because his works have survived, while
Heraclitus' book
hasn't. Of course it helps enormously that
Plato was a great
writer, but his philosophical originality
and genius are somewhat
over-rated perhaps. Think about it.
Think about Socrates.
Think about *Plato's* Socrates. Then
consider that all
those wonderful qualities that make Socrates
such a striking figure
were already there in Heraclitus!
.
Socrates the
gadfly, the skeptic, the fearless investigator?
NO! Heraclitus was
the first gadfly, the original skeptic,
the arch-investigator.
Is not Socrates simply Heraclitus under
another name? It
may well be so. After all, the only advantage
that Socrates had
over anybody else was his potent awareness
of the scope and
power of ignorance. As for Plato himself, his
philosophical contributions
(eg. the theory of ideas) can be
understood as his
answer to (and overcoming of) Heraclitus.
.
>> as well as the
essential foundation of all sound philosophy.
>> Therefore, any
theology that does not recognize Heraclitus
>> is incapable of
grasping the *whole* truth. <snip>
.
> Not so.
.
So you think
that theology and the Faith are better off
without any contact
with the history of philosophy?!
.
>>> Matthew previously
wrote: No, the term 'logos-spark' is
>>> completely inappropriate
here. Indeed, you seem to have
>>> confused the
different modes of being of the Holy Spirit
>>> in the world.
For somewhere in the Psalms, the Holy Spirit
>>> is described
as present in all creation;
.
>> tx: 'Transcendence
within immanence' is a good definition
>> of the gracious
and providential activities of the Spirit.
.
> MJ: No, as a _definition_
it is woefully inadequate;
> but as a _description_
it is remarkable.
.
I bow deeply
before thy greater wisdom, good sir. 
.
- the partially semi-corrected one - texxtman ;>
.
P.S. "We have reached
the point where philosophy must
guard religion against
certain kinds of theology."
-- from Hegel's
'Philosophy of History'.
x
Goto GodTalk
#17
textman
*