Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Its the *place* where Weaver’s metaphysical dream forms. You operate from this place, as it were. We all do.

Yeah, but I have a copy of Weaver right here.

So I know that's not the end of that story. The "metaphysical dream" of which he speaks is not at all arbitrary or merely imaginatively created.

Chapter 1, page 18. Weaver's "metaphysical dream" is not an arbitrary construct arranged by man to suit his tastes. It begins, he says, "after a categorical statement that life and the world are to be cherished." That is, we accept and affirm some aspect of that which pre-exists our imagining of anything. He adds that this cannot be founded in "sentiment with regard to the world," but "There must be a source of clairfication, of arrangement and hierarchy, which will provide grounds for the employment of the rational faculty..." He says that teleology, or "some conception of what [man] should be," comes out of this. (20)

Thus, we have his claim that objective reality has to be accepted and affirmed, and that criterionless imaginings are worthless.(20) It must not be "a sentiment which is sentimental." We must accept what he calles the "donnee," or "givennness" of the world. That is, that the world comes to us not as a product of our imagingings but as a given, as settled already and objective, and good, and capable of critieria of judgment, too.

So let's do what he says: you specify the "metaphysical dream" and the criteria to be used, and we'll see how it fits with "reason," as he says. (20)

[uwot]

... the universe turns out to operate by predictable, mathematical regularities or "laws," rather than by some kind of unintelligible inconsistencies.

All that means is if you set up the same conditions, you get the same result. That is exactly what you would expect unless some clown were fiddling with the knobs.

(And that fact is what makes science, physics, engineering, and so on possible, of course.)

In other words, the fact that there are no miracles proves that Mr Can's god exists.

[RCSaunders]

I suppose if someone has no purpose of their own and cannot imagine what they are living for without having something or someone else tell them what to live for, it would seem there is nothing teleological. Though you won't understand it, because you find no meaning or purpose for your life in yourself and depend on the dictates of some authority for what you regard as your reason for living, others regard their own life and their successful pursuit of it as the basis of all purpose, value and meaning. That which has no purpose, value, or meaning to one's own life, for them, has no purpose, value, or meaning at all. Only human beings can consciously choose their goals and objectives and all purpose and value only have meaning relative to someone's chosen goals and objectives.

This is mostly a parody of what theological thought involves itself with. Occidental theological thought is, to be fair and accurate, an amalgamation of numerous strains of thought of the ancient or pre-modern world. Everyone knows this. But those strains of thought were channeled into a larger system called Christianity. The essential questions are and always will be What is this existence? and What must we do?

I have no idea what you mean by, "Occidental theological thought." If it's supposed to mean Western theology, in all the theology I've read and studied from the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old and New Testaments, the early church fathers, and every major theologian from Augustine to Calvin, Luther, Wesley and most of the minor theologians, in all of it there is no nonsense about, "what existence is," or, "what must we do." It is all the very opposite to enquirey, it is all dogmatic assertion of exactly what there is and what is required of human behavior, and it is all nonsense created out of whole clothe.

To say 'living in accord with what others determine' is not an accurate way to put it. In fact it is highly charged rhetoric and mis-statement. Theology at its best examines the core problems in the core question and determines, through processes of logic, what answers are the better ones.

You don't really seem to know much about theology and who ever said, 'living in accord with what others determine' unless you are attempting to paraphrase something you think I said.

When you state "others regard their own life and their successful pursuit of it as the basis of all purpose, value and meaning" you make reference, of course, to the entire Occidental history of dealing with the core questions.

No! I make reference to those rare few human beings who have chosen to think for themselves and not derive their views or their values as part of any history or culture.

I should have said, "a small minority of others," because the religious are not the only individuals who see no value or purpose in their own lives and must derive any purpose or value, if not dictated by a god, then from their relationship to some collective (the purpose of their life is what they are to society, mankind, or some state), or to fulfill some ideological view (the purpose of their life is to fulfill some mystic mandate or manifest destiny, or something)--anything but their own life and success.

By, "others," I did not mean all others except Christians, I mean only those rare few others who have real objective values, purposes, and meaning in their lives. Everyone else's so-called values, purposes, and meaning are second-hand (borrowed from society or others) or mystical substitutes for real values.

Yet you imply some sort of break away from, or getting out from under the (negative) restraint of what has been seen, discovered, thought through, and also decided upon as solid bases for good and productive activities,

Some break away, because they are late discovering that most societies are comprised largely of parasites who actually produce nothing of value but consume great amounts of that which is produced by the true independent, hard working creators, so choose to longer be slaves of the system. Most never join the system to begin with, so never need to, "break away."

That which has no purpose, value, or meaning to one's own life, for them, has no purpose, value, or meaning at all.

Does not seem to be a very smart way of dealing with systems of knowledge and systems of understanding. The key to your phrasing is to focus on the 'at all'. It is quite possible that an intelligent and thoughtful person may encounter within some unknown and unexplored ethical or existential system a great deal that does, in fact, mean something. So it seems that in fact what you wish to accomplish is to make bold. declarative statements about your own processes and decision, and these obviously *rule* you and all your opinions.

No, I just express my views in plain unadorned English, without a lot of academic jargon and gobledegook intended to sound profound and esoteric but meaning nothing like, "unknown and unexplored ethical or existential system," which identifies nothing.

Only human beings can consciously choose their goals and objectives and all purpose and value only have meaning relative to someone's chosen goals and objectives.

You make declarative statements that tart themselves up as truisms, yet when they are examined there is a lot more there. They seem often misunderstandings that are presented with declarative force. But on what basis?

Perhaps you prefer wishy-washy vague descriptions of what someone hopes or believes is true that cannot be clearly understood and is stated without any clear sense of certainty. What I say is simply what I believe without doubt or compromise, explained in a way I believe is least likely to be misunderstood. If you don't like that kind of straightforward honest style, go read you academic books. They're full of obscure and intentionally vague and meaningless assertions leading nowhere.

Within the human system, and within this world, there are decisions made relative to the essential question: What is all this? and What am I to do here? Do you suppose that is an 'invented' concern? an 'invented' preoccupation? I think not. Those are the basic questions which Intelligence faces. The negation of that, of those questions, of that exploration, involves nescience. Turning off the current. Going to sleep. Forgetting. Failing to engage. Negation.

Its true, philosophers have been asking the same questions forever, and will never cease, because very few really want to know the truth. They all prefer their made up realities, their religions, and the dreams of man-made Utopias, and since reality will never provide the kind of world they would like it to be, and keeps proving all their made-up ideas of what the world should be don't work and they are therefore always in trouble they will never be satisfied.

"What are you up to?" is the question that keeps coming up when I examine your discourse. What are you trying to achieve?

That's because you are up to something and cannot imagine that everyone else is not just like you. It is beyond your ability to understand those whose only desire and aim is to live their own lives as they choose to make of themselves the best human being they can be, to achieve all they can and enjoy a life of accomplishment that is fully satisfying and without regret, never wanting anything in this world but what the have produced or earned by their own effort and desiring no relationship with anyone else that is not totally voluntary, chosen by each individual for their own benefit. Such people have no interest in interfering in anyone else's life, no agenda to promote or program to put over.

It is the religious, the political, and the idological who are all, "up to something," trying to promote their religion or latest social/political agendas and attempting to influence what others believe and do. It's what you do.

I do enjoy exploring ideas. I very much enjoy discussions with others whose views are very different from mine, because they expand my horizons and help me sharpen my own thinking and I'm always interested in new ideas. I attempt to explain my own idea for any others who might be like me, always wanting to learn new things. I have no other objective or purpose and no desire whatsoever to change what anyone else chooses to think, believe, or do.

I generally have very little tolerance for fools, or those who want to reduce discussions to personalities or judgements of others. I truly do not care what anyone else thinks or says to or about me, but their unreasonableness can be boring.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: No, they view things, they view through speculative and intuitive lenses.

IC: That just means "they're making stuff up.

No it does not. To speculate is not to invent nor make up. It is to fashion a communicable picture. It is to make intelligible. And it is also how we — the individual— form pictures. But the picture is not the thing nor the truth of the thing.

Similarly, to intuit is not to invent.

You keep stumbling over this. It is an impasse for you. I’d like to help you but I can’t.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yeah, but I have a copy of Weaver right here.

And? I have four copies: an original signed edition; another in French; one quite tattered in Spanish; and one in Esperanto. My little collection trumps yours.

[Nick_A]

From Jacob Needleman's book "The Heart of Philosophy"

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

If the universe has no purpose then the purpose of philosophy is to establish the pecking order in society by "Might makes Right" Without a personal God telling you what to do, what other choice is there where no objective purpose exists? Art and science now serves pragmatic goals as opposed to the search for truth and philosophy has become the battlefield of opinions.

In a declining society can philosophy help those to "remember" other then the gifted ones who seek the purpose of our universe and the purpose of Man within it regardless of the growls of protest they have to face. Is society destined to include more and more things dying from the loss of their real possibilities?

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah, but I have a copy of Weaver right here.

And? I have four copies: an original signed edition; another in French; one quite tattered in Spanish; and one in Esperanto. My little collection trumps yours.

Indeed it does.

But at least we can swap quotations in the original English.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Chapter 1, page 18. Weaver's "metaphysical dream" is not an arbitrary construct arranged by man to suit his tastes. It begins, he says, "after a categorical statement that life and the world are to be cherished." That is, we accept and affirm some aspect of that which pre-exists our imagining of anything. He adds that this cannot be founded in "sentiment with regard to the world," but "There must be a source of clairfication, of arrangement and hierarchy, which will provide grounds for the employment of the rational faculty..." He says that teleology, or "some conception of what [man] should be," comes out of this. (20)

I did not say that a *metaphysical dream* is an arbitrary construct and I would never say a metaphysical picture is ‘arranged to suit his tastes’. How do you come up with these strange interpretations of what I write?

But there are, indeed there are, different metaphysical pictures. In your scheme, and also in your apologetics, you seem to feel a need to denigrate those other ways of organizing perception. You are within your right to do so but I cannot. It leads to unnecessary opposition and discord. I am much more interested in building bridges among with who share a similar vision.

Thus, we have his claim that objective reality has to be accepted and affirmed, and that criterionless imaginings are worthless.(20) It must not be "a sentiment which is sentimental." We must accept what he calles the "donnee," or "givennness" of the world. That is, that the world comes to us not as a product of our imagingings but as a given, as settled already and objective, and good, and capable of critieria of judgment, too.

Weaver is a philosopher deeply involved in and committed to metaphysics in the quintessential sense. His notion of ‘metaphysical dreams’ is entirely bound up in this. What is and where is the ‘objective reality’ in a profoundly metaphysical perspective? In a sense this is a contradiction of terms. And this is why materialists and atheists, to use common terms, reject metaphysics of the sort that Weaver defines, and most of the specific manifestations (specific religions).

"There must be a source of clairfication, of arrangement and hierarchy, which will provide grounds for the employment of the rational faculty“.
Sure, and that is found in a well-organized mind capable of the sort of analysis he demonstrates. But there are numerous metaphysical systems that could be employed and which support his general scheme.

So let's do what he says: you specify the "metaphysical dream" and the criteria to be used, and we'll see how it fits with "reason," as he says

Your position, to be frank and direct, allows for just one picture and description. You are completely married to it. But I would point out that Weaver did not ever, as far as I am aware, write Christian apologetics. He seemed to me profoundly Platonist. And this is not the same. Platonism of Weaver’s sort allows for more latitude. Many committed Christians availed themselves of Weaver’s ideas and focus to buttress their positions though. And that is his relevancy to conservatism.

[Immanuel Can]

...there are, different metaphysical pictures....you seem to feel a need to denigrate those other ways of organizing perception.

Weaver does.

If they lack relationship to reality and have no criteria, then they are mere delusions. Weaver would agree, because those are his claims.

Thus, we have his claim that objective reality has to be accepted and affirmed, and that criterionless imaginings are worthless.(20) It must not be "a sentiment which is sentimental." We must accept what he calles the "donnee," or "givennness" of the world. That is, that the world comes to us not as a product of our imagingings but as a given, as settled already and objective, and good, and capable of critieria of judgment, too.

What is and where is the ‘objective reality’ in a profoundly metaphysical perspective?

Weaver says it starts with affirmation of the "donee," the given world. Objective reality itself.

If you're not affirming that, right from the start, he says, then you're being merely "sentimental," (20). Weaver sees the relativism of the modern world, with its embracing of all perspectives, as direct evidence of being fatally "sentimental" in this way.

I think maybe you've mistaken his word "dream" for meaning "something merely imaginary or made up." In Weaver, it's not. Of the world of relativism, he writes, "The darkling plain, swept by alarms, which threatens the world of our future is an arena in which conflicting ideas...are freed from the discipline earlier imposed by ultimate conceptions. The decline is to confusion... our ideas become convenient conceptions because we no longer feel the necessity of relating thoughts to the metaphysical dream...the waning of the dream results in confusion of counsel, such as we behold on all sides in our time." (20-21)

So for him, these "other ways of organizing perception" of which you speak are not things to be celebrated, and are not even what he means by "the metaphysical dream," but are rather modern delusions, devoid of the discipline of coherence, criteria and logic, which we in the modern world have come to accept because we have become morally confused. They are not good things, in his view.

So let's do what he says: you specify the "metaphysical dream" and the criteria to be used, and we'll see how it fits with "reason," as he says

Your position, to be frank and direct, allows for just one picture and description.

You mean Weaver's position. I'm quoting him.

My own would be slightly different, as you rightly note. But I think Weaver does indeed have some things right, and this is one of them.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Weaver does.

If they lack relationship to reality and have no criteria, then they are mere delusions. Weaver would agree, because those are his claims.

But that is not a position I argue for. Weaver’s outlook and what he offers, philosophically, supports a wide range of different religious stances. He is not an apologist, specifically, for Christianity. You are an apologist for a specific and non-flexible Christianity.

It is not quite right to say ‘these are his claims’ when, in fact, you are asserting your claims and trying to link Weaver to your own, particular, religious commitment. Weaver’s outline of metaphysics offers a great deal of latitude. Your views, I have gathered, do not. I think you can only take this as a statement *against Christianity* and yet that is not my position, nor is it my interest or intention, at all.

If they lack relationship to reality and have no criteria, then they are mere delusions.

What Weaver critiques is the *outcome* of the falling away in Occidental culture from the strong structure of metaphysics. Ideas Have Consequences is a critique of what results from that falling away. My view is that he tries to show, and succeeds largely, a conceptual pathway back to the possibility of understanding what constructive and necessary effect strong metaphysics has for the individual and for the society.

Weaver sees the relativism of the modern world, with its embracing of all perspectives, as direct evidence of being fatally "sentimental" in this way.

You have a talent in restating things in a way that, to a degree, twists them. The modern world that has ‘embraced all perspectives’ is a different world and a different issue than those who discover, and strengthen, their metaphysical commitments through grasping what Weaver is talking about. His philosophy, what he sees, describes and presents, could very well be put to use by someone, say, committed to those Vedic metaphysical concepts I often refer to. I do not read him as specifically advocating for a strict Christian perspective. And indeed one could chose to become a strict Platonist and remain in Weaver’s good graces.

You are strangely rigid and you tend to misinterpret. I would say that it is not that all perspectives must be *embraced* but that many other perspectives can be examined and considered. And they need not be mercilessly, recklessly and violently shot down.

Weaver’s ideas about sentimentalism have a different base, a more developed base, than you let on. If *real intellectualism*, as Weaver values and supports, is undermined or deprecated, and if it is not taught (and it can be taught), one falls way from intellectualism in the scholastic sense to the mutability of *feelings*.

But to examine another perspective, or a metaphysical system (the one I know most about, for comparative purposes, is the Vedic) does not imply ‘falling into sentimentalism’. One can examine and understand different and varying systems of thought without ‘embracing’ them. One can remain dispassionate but intellectually engaged.

I think maybe you've mistaken his word "dream" for meaning "something merely imaginary or made up."

No, that is exactly what I am not doing. You misunderstand me because I view Christianity from a wider perspective. You cannot access this perspective and so any critique that appears to contradict your rigid position is taken as an attack. I take ‘metaphysical dream’ to indicate something, a perceptual lens, an orientation, that each and every person has whether they see it and understand it — and handle and hone it carefully and cautiously — or not.

And many, and certainly among Christians taken en masse, have bizarre, half-structured, ultra-sentimental, cobbled-together and often intensely paranoid and psychologically projecting, metaphysical dreams. Not the best dream to get invested in. So my view is that one’s metaphysical perceptual stance, which is hard to see unless on has access to a master metaphysician who can help one, needs to be seen, clarified, remodeled. And that is intellectual, philosophical work, which is a different work from ‘embracing Christianity’ as a believer. Which can be somewhat like aligning oneself with a cult. So these various forms of Christianity as they are praciced have an array of *functions* (as I say) and they are not all good or positive. Those ‘believers’ are not asked, necessarily, to develop a metaphysical perspective — a thoughtful, careful perspective.

They do not study Weaver and ‘come to Jesus’. Some do though. Many Christians ‘went to Weaver’ and found confirmation for their own choices. Or perhaps they went further into these issues as a result of reading him. Myself, reading Weaver helped me to reevaluate Christianity. I see in it something of immense importance, but I also see that it has become contaminated. Sorting all this out is not easy.

In Weaver, it's not. Of the world of relativism, he writes, "The darkling plain, swept by alarms, which threatens the world of our future is an arena in which conflicting ideas...are freed from the discipline earlier imposed by ultimate conceptions. The decline is to confusion... our ideas become convenient conceptions because we no longer feel the necessity of relating thoughts to the metaphysical dream...the waning of the dream results in confusion of counsel, such as we behold on all sides in our time." (20-21)

And more or less, with different or varying emphasis, this is a large part of what I attempt to talk about. And this is why Weaver, among others (Basil Willey is another one), had a strong effect.

[Immanuel Can]

Weaver’s outlook and what he offers, philosophically, supports a wide range of different religious stances.

A range, but not a wide one. As I say, he's not a supporter of anything that fails to honour the given, or anything that comes with no criteria. That actually eliminates a lot.

...trying to link Weaver to your own, particular, religious commitment.

Nope. His allegiances are conservative, but not specifically Christian. But a great deal of what he did stand for also was derivative of the Christian worldview, too.

Weaver sees the relativism of the modern world, with its embracing of all perspectives, as direct evidence of being fatally "sentimental" in this way.

His philosophy, what he sees, describes and presents, could very well be put to use by someone, say, committed to those Vedic metaphysical concepts I often refer to.

I have my doubts about that. It doesn't seem an obvious move. You'd have to show me that some Vedic thought honours the given and has suitable associated criteria, at the very least.

[Dubious]

When you say that language is inherent (as Noam Chomsky asserts in his linguistic theories) I agree, but I am inclined to step back from the entire picture, the specific picture, our own picture, and try to see language, logos and communicability as part-and-parcel of the kosmos: something inherent in it and something that will always manifest itself.

As metaphor, I’d describe the language as programmatic in creating a hologram of processes which manifest the cosmos as it seems to us. Language as monologue, invariably and exclusively subject to its own grammar.

Curiously, RC asserts that the languages of mathematics, etc., are 'inventions' of man. This cannot be right.

It cannot be invented without considering the objects to which it's applied whether absolute in the sense of being there – long prior to our own existence - or the theoretical investigation of the possibility of something being there. In short mathematics is the language of the structures we observe or hypothesize; that is not an invention. The invention consists in the symbols we use as understood by mathematicians.

And what happens here, for us, has happened and will happen forever and always. And what ultimately is that? What is it that we do? We *encounter* logos. We get involved with logos. And we plumb the depth of what logos means when it is applied in a universal perceptual act to the entire world, to the kosmos, and to everything manifest.

Your encounter with logos as applied to the cosmos conforms – as I interpret it – to a universal constant unconditionally saturated with its own creative logic. It is what god would have spoken had there been any such demiurge to start the process. As I said, metaphors can be sublime and completely acceptable to the universe - even if taken literally. All interpretations are allowed and none negated. What is sin in the bible is commensurate to the freedom allowable in an indifferent universe unsupervised by any interventionist overlords.

We are asked questions that we have to answer. And though now and today we are at a crossroads when one *world* seems to dim and another *world* seems to come into view (oppositional metaphysical systems) this confusion must be momentary, mustn't it? It is a discord that must be resolved -- at least eventually.

The important questions hardly ever get resolved which is the reason they consistently reappear whenever any provisional acceptance once again begins to question itself. The most iconic questions are the looped ones.

But here it is: logically, it seems to me -- intuitively logically I mean -- there can never be nothing. Existence is. Being is. There is no possible alternative.

The state of Nothing I often qualify as the cradle of Something as long as the Yin-Yang forces are alive and kicking. It’s a Nothing according to Heraclitus principle of enantiodromia - an active nothing compared to a dead one. Likely where only energy exists - and nothing else by way of existence or being - possibilities are born, the universe being an affirmation of it.

Is there a New Way that will rewrite or supersede what has already been discovered, defined and spoken? My present view is that this does not seem to be the case.

As Lear said “Nothing becomes of nothing” so I imagine we will never start from scratch; that whatever supersedes will be a refinement of what was already thought through the ages though modified by new insights and the subtraction of its main absurdities. But I’m probably being idealistic...a vice I renounced long ago!

It is true that if there is an 'absolute' that we cannot arrogate that we have it, own it and have been assigned to *dole it out*. Yet at the same time, and inevitably, we have no choice really but to assign values, determine meaning, define our values and ideas and measure them against other, competing values and ideas. This implies some sort of constant.

I agree, but a constant is normally assigned a fixed value. Juxtaposing our assigned values to one which is only constant in never committing to anything vastly reduces the value of the ones we already have...even on a provisional basis.

But what interests me more is what happens when the conceptual possibility of such a 'constant' (an absolute) is no longer conceived of as possible. You say "Forgo any construct of absolute truth and nothing changes" and I am not at all sure that this is so. If we lose the possibility of a 'ground' under our feet (the "horizon" that M. Nietzsche determined was wiped away) there are definitely effects and consequences.

...but what Nietzsche referred to was certainly not any absolute truth but one millennially accepted as if it were one and its consequent psychological effect in having to renounce it. It was an assumed absolute whose negation has consequences. N was not in the least concerned about any such absolute existing and even questioned whether truth itself, as supervised by us, is more a function of expediency to make it seem favorable when in actuality it often isn’t. Within the human psyche truth, more often than not, colludes with hypocrisy which is seldom mentioned as ingredient in that alliance.

I gather from this that the notion of *the sacred* is not a truth-laden notion for you. What is *sacred* is, I gather, just an assignment of a feeling of over-awe?

But in my general theory I assign a great deal of significance to what *sacred* means and what it is. At the ultimate point it can only be 'that which reveals and aligns one with Larger Truths which are -- which must be -- metaphysical and universal.

To me the sacred is that which has long been sanctioned as most valuable, most indispensable to an individual or, most importantly, to a society; a traditional inflection which claims some element of its existence as sacrosanct. An over-awe never lasts long enough to fully claim the title.

What becomes interesting is the structured and intellectual way that those who are (so it seems to me) captured by those pesky nihilistic currents which seem to determine their ideas bring forward their absolutist assertions about *how things really are*.

That’s what myths, stories and religions are for...to camouflage how things really are being our little anodynes when facing truths too neutral to be favorable. Among humans, truth is most revealing when it renounces itself and all our bright crystal ballroom chandeliers show themselves to be nothing more than 40 watt light-bulbs!

[RCSaunders]

There didn't even have to be such a thing as "nature," in fact. There ought to have been nothing at all, or if there were anything, just disorder. Both of those eventualities are immeasurably more likely than an intelligible, law-governed, coherent universe.

I hope you don't have any influence over children whose minds you corrupt with this logical nonsense. What is cannot not also not be. The universe is and has the nature it has and could not possibly not be (which would contradict A cannot also be non-A) and what is true can never not have been true (which would amount to the same contradiction).

The fact that reality is and has the nature it has means it is not possible there could ever been a time or condition in which the universe was not going to exist and have the nature it has. It may be a little difficult for you to understand since you've frozen your mind with your superstitions, but perhaps we can thaw it out.

There is a concept in philosophy called, "logical determinism." It is actually mistakenly applied, because nothing is, "determined," by it in the sense of, "cause." But it does explain why what is true is always true. I think even you can understand it:

Logical Determinism—Sometimes invoked to imply that cause means that everything that ever has or ever will happen (like the "chain of causes," view) must be true, because of the logical fact that what is cannot be anything other than what is. One illustration of this idea is the fact that the past is immutable. Every event of the past is whatever it is and can never change. But, every past event was once a future event which was going to be the event it was, because there could never have been a time when it was going to be anything else. The future is as certain as the past.

If it rained yesterday, it is not possible that it could not have rained yesterday and there could never have been a time when it was not going to rain yesterday. Two weeks ago, it was going to rain yesterday absolutely. If it is going to rain tomorrow, it is not possible that it is not going to rain tomorrow. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and nothing other than that is possible.

While this must be true, it has no significance in terms of cause. The certainty of the future does not cause the future, it only recognizes that there is a future and that it must be something, and whatever it will be, it must be because there can only be one future. What that future will be is not caused by that fact, however. What the future will be is determined by what every entity that now exists will do determined by its own nature. Logical determinism is a misnomer. The certainty of the future is not, "determined," by logic, only described by it.

Cosmology is not "absurd." The amazing thing is that it's rational.

Cosmology is only, "rational," in the sense that it uses the method of reason to hypothesize (i.e. conjecture or guess) about the, "origins," of what there is no reason to believe there was any origin of.

What force do you believe the universe is "open" to, that could produce order and intelligibility of the kind we observe? That's only one aspect of all the things it pertains to, but it does illustrate the case, too.

Yes, it does.

You exist now, and judging by entropy, one day you won't. What will be left will be only residual, disordered particles of energy, in a permanent, final-entropic condition of chaos.

We've been down this road before. I've shown you the way, but you refuse to look at the map and prefer to remain lost. For anyone who would like to not be caught up in the morass of confusion you and others entertain about the nature order and chaos (and so I don't have to clutter up the post with the explanation again, please see, "Disorder, Chaos, and Existence." What you refer to as, "order," in the universe is just the nature physical existence has as it is discovered and understood by human beings. That, "order," is just a human concept for principles that correctly describe existence as it actually is. Nothing makes it or causes it.

Now I cannot spend any more time addressing your absurd beliefs but this:

The Self Contradiction Of Cosmoc Contongency

Your statement, "There didn't even have to be such a thing as "nature," in fact. There ought to have been nothing at all ..." is just one of the many ways you assume existence is contingent on something else, that there must be some, "cause," behind existence on the grounds that nothing can just exist and everything must have a cause. One moment's thought will dispel that assumption as the logical contradiction it is. Everything cannot be contingent. Everything cannot have a cause. As soon as you suggest something as the cause of anything, since everything must have a cause, that cause must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause, ad infinitum. There cannot be a first cause if everything must have a cause. It cannot be true that everything must have a cause. Something must just be and be what it is without being contingent on anything else.

Except in the minds of the superstitious there is no question of what that existence is that is not contingent on anything else.

The religious and idealist philosophers try to convince us we should not believe the world we actually see, hear, feel, smell and taste is the real and only world and that we should instead take their word for it that some other mystical existence that can neither be perceived or even explained which they have created in their own imaginations is the real world, based on the same false premise you based your assertion on, a premise you neither truly believe or hold consistently.

If your premise were true and you really believed it you would have to apply it to everything you believe exists. You would have to say, "There didn't even have to be such a thing as "god," in fact. There ought to have been no god at all."

Why would there be a god? Certainly you don't believe god just is because nothing can be without a cause, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

A range, but not a wide one. As I say, he's not a supporter of anything that fails to honour the given, or anything that comes with no criteria. That actually eliminates a lot.

I used the word ‘latitude’. You here use the word ‘range’. I commend you for granting me the point I wished to make. And since in all my argument I do not support what fails to honor ‘the given’, and always speak about ‘criteria’, I wonder who you are actually responding to when you seem to oppose some of the ideas I present.

His allegiances are conservative, but not specifically Christian. But a great deal of what he did stand for also was derivative of the Christian worldview, too.

My own grasp of Weaver is similar to how you put it: an attempt to define what conservatism is or should be. It has also occurred to me that he is more than a *mere* Conservative. In fact with some of his assertions (about nominalism and the 13th century) he actually seems to posit the necessity of an intellectual re-embrace of ideas that are traditionalist. I would draw a distinction between conservatism and traditionalism. Loosely put, conservatism must go along with the flow and advance of time and is not opposed to innovation. It seems to rather wish to apply brakes to the velocity of change. But conservatism, in and of itself, does not represent an ‘anchor’ that has a solid ground. So it seems to me that it will always be pulled around by those with a more active and aggressive ideology. And as you are likely aware and we all have heard in our present day the so-called Conservatives *conserve nothing*.

And this is why — when one explores the strange but interesting world of fringe-Right radicalism — one encounters people who propose the necessity of a return to traditionalism. And many read Rene Guenon, Julius Evola and then even perhaps the most radical of all, Savitri Devi who saw in Hitler a manifestation of Vishnu. She defines ‘the current of time’ as that which we are all subsumed in. It has its own force and movement and, like it or not, carries us all forward. But on the opposite side of that scale are those men who *turn against time* and act as a ‘counter-current’ to what is defined as, and described as, a destructive current. So these traditionalists often ensconce themselves in traditional religions — for example Savitri Devi lived in India, married a Hindu, and aligned herself with the Indian nationalist movement as a practitioner of the Vedic religion. So her idea about *the present flow of time* linked the time we are in with a descending cycle: Kali Yuga. A descending cycle that has an unfortunate bottom.

What I find interesting is the resonance in the notion of a descending cycle, Kali Yuga, and the more or less traditional Christian notion of the end of days, the current direction of things where the Antichrist appears. Now what interests me, and it should interest us all, is the force and power of these affirmed predictions. As you know (I submitted a video) Pat Roberts comes out of his cave of retirement to make a statement that Russia has no real concern for Ukraine and its *true objective* is to destroy Israel. These ideas are deeply invested in dark prescriptions and, it seems, a sort of mass-thinking which tends to evoke exactly what is seen in their dark visions.

But she was not alone in making this intense critique of modernity. You can find people who are thinking in similar terms in extremely traditional Catholicism — indeed the doctrines and admonitions of Pius X are intensely traditionalist. To embrace his ideas, his opposition to modernism which he described as the ‘synthesis of all heresies’ is to make an extremely radical turn back into a former mode of seeing reality. It is as if the Old Mode will be held to no matter how intense the progressive opposition to it. It requires a mind-set of *radical rejectionism*.

The interesting thing about your position, to the degree that you actually come out and define it (and you seem to hide that to a degree) is that you, too, are invested in a type of radical traditionalism. And you propose that this traditionalism is what people — all people, all people of the Earth in fact — not only need to embrace but must embrace.

So again this is a philosophy forum and, for good or for evil, a place where all assertions, all declarations, all statements, all organizations of declarative truth, get to be subjected to critical examination. I think this is why this thread continues to have a good deal of life in it. My sense is that we are all quite vitally concerned about these matters, though of course each one comes from a different position.

Here is a link to Jonathan Bowden and his discourse on Savitri Devi. I submit it as an example of ultra-traditionalism. It goes so far beyond the limits of acceptable thought. But it is interesting to hear him talk about how she arrives at her radical conjectures.

[Immanuel Can]

There didn't even have to be such a thing as "nature," in fact. There ought to have been nothing at all, or if there were anything, just disorder. Both of those eventualities are immeasurably more likely than an intelligible, law-governed, coherent universe.

What is cannot not also not be.

Right. And the universe is orderly, intelligible and rule governed...which means it's literally astronomically unlikely that it's an accident.

There is a concept in philosophy called, "logical determinism."

I'm very familiar with that error. It's still an error, and it's not even genuinely "logical."

The future is as certain as the past.

Nobody believes that: even you don't. You're trying to "change" my mind. If the future is already so certain, you wouldn't.

Cosmology is not "absurd." The amazing thing is that it's rational.

Cosmology is only, "rational," in the sense that it uses the method of reason to hypothesize (i.e. conjecture or guess) about the, "origins," of what there is no reason to believe there was any origin of.[/quote]
Well, a "hypothesis" is considerably more than a guess, but I'll let you have that one. But no, cosmology depends on many things...deduction among them. So there are very good reasons to believe certain postulates, and completely logical reasons to reject some. A good example would be the idea that the universe is past-eternal. We know that that is not merely logically but also mathematically and empirically not the case. And there's no "guessing" about that left at all...it's now beyond any reasonable doubt.

...you refuse to look at the map...

Yes, your "map" is lovely.

...you assume existence is contingent...

It is. Observably so.

You, for example, are not self-existent. Neither am I. Nor is anything that exhibits entropy. They're all contingent beings, by definition.