Origins Of Christianity

[pood]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

What sort of “end goal” would you like? If your goal is to understand the origin of Christianity, I think politesse answered your question in the link I provided: no one knows exactly how it arose and never will. In any case, “endless philosophizing” is part of the human condition since there will never be any final understanding of most things.

Back to What Is Philosophy on the philosophy forum. Another derail.

Goal? Now you are playing games. What is the point of all your posts on Peacegirl’s thread on determinism and free will natter of which are resolvable?

I found tour comment about this thread odd considering all the time you put into exchange with Papergirl. Whatever floats your boat.

When I thumbed through Hegel one thing he said was philosophy was more than just debate. There is a goal or end state. A more modern Popper who wrote on science said with the rise of modern science not much was left for philosophy, debate and meaning.

Pearl and NHC go round and round over meaning calling each other wrong and clamming proofs and disproofs. Perl gets indignant.


The thread was hijacked by NHC and Pearl arguing more philosophy than the OP.

In the end who cares I suppose.

What sort of goal? Ideas on origins of Christianity not personal debate.

I asked mods to split the thread, no response.

You were an engineer. In engineering you can get neat, simple, correct solutions to well-posed problems.

You can’t get that in history, historiography, and philosophy, and this thread involves all three.

I think you should adjust your expectations.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Here are the three non-evasive commitments that decide this:

1. Yes or no: when Paul says his message is “not from man… not taught by man… but through revelation,” is that clause used in the letter to defeat rival, man-taught warrants?
   If yes, you concede the origin claim is used as public warrant and must stand or fall by public discriminators. If no, you must explain why Paul places it in direct opposition to named rivals and attaches an anathema to contrary messages.
2. Yes or no: do you agree that emotion and polemic can be concurrent in a single document?
   If yes, you concede that “emotive possibility” cannot block recognizing polemical actuality when the operations are present. If no, you contradict your own prior admissions.
3. Yes or no: when a premise is publicly used as a warrant in a dispute, it either carries evidential support or it is methodologically illegitimate as a warrant.
   If yes, then either provide the public discriminator for “not of man… through revelation” or concede it has zero standing as warrant. If no, you’re abandoning the basic distinction between faith profession and public warrant—something you have not defended.

Nothing new there. All that has been addressed repeatedly. Ad nauseam.

I will not chase further detours about “shared heart and mind,

It is not a detour. It is a perspective which you have not addressed with your account. You only take your one interpretation into account. That is tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is a malady.

publicly checkable discriminators

Because of your tunnel vision, you failed to take into account such "discriminators" as other of Paul's statements. As has been shown, your polemic interpretation is incompatible with other Paul statements - such as the reasoning/argument Paul provides.

As previously discussed, there is no good case for regarding as a premise what you interpret as polemic - given the nature of polemic itself.

Additionally, in light of the fact that Paul provides what you admit is actual reasoning - an actual argument - which does not rely on divine experience, there is greater weight for the notion that what you interpret as and call polemic was not an argument or part of an argument.

As not-an-argument, what is being referred to as polemic is not rationally expected to have or be a premise.

As not-an-argument, what is being referred to as polemic should be set aside since actual reasoning was provided separately.

It makes no sense - it is irrational - to refuse to set aside your polemic interpretation.

Repeatedly misrepresenting my statements and position does not - and cannot - save you from your irrational refusal to see beyond your polemic interpretation and your refusal to set aside your polemic interpretation for being of utterly no significance - even if the polemic is actual.

 

[steve_bank]

Pood wins, I surrender.

 

[steve_bank]

A non answer goes to credibility.

Does it?

Or does whatever he believes have any relevance to what he is arguing?

Pood, Pearl, ad NHC are three peas in a pod. Endless philosophizing with no end goal.

What sort of “end goal” would you like? If your goal is to understand the origin of Christianity, I think politesse answered your question in the link I provided: no one knows exactly how it arose and never will. In any case, “endless philosophizing” is part of the human condition since there will never be any final understanding of most things.

Back to What Is Philosophy on the philosophy forum. Another derail.

Goal? Now you are playing games. What is the point of all your posts on Peacegirl’s thread on determinism and free will natter of which are resolvable?

I found tour comment about this thread odd considering all the time you put into exchange with Papergirl. Whatever floats your boat.

When I thumbed through Hegel one thing he said was philosophy was more than just debate. There is a goal or end state. A more modern Popper who wrote on science said with the rise of modern science not much was left for philosophy, debate and meaning.

Pearl and NHC go round and round over meaning calling each other wrong and clamming proofs and disproofs. Perl gets indignant.


The thread was hijacked by NHC and Pearl arguing more philosophy than the OP.

In the end who cares I suppose.

What sort of goal? Ideas on origins of Christianity not personal debate.

I asked mods to split the thread, no response.

You were an engineer. In engineering you can get neat, simple, correct solutions to well-posed problems.

You can’t get that in history, historiography, and philosophy, and this thread involves all three.

I think you should adjust your expectations.

Actually that is incorrect as to how engineering works in general. And it depends on what area you work in.

There are established theories, but there is no 'how to' as to how to actually solve a problem. Not all technical problems are solvable by a structured logical approach.

There are established rules of formal logic, but not how to apply formal logic to an actual problem.

As to history it depends on the situation. There is no way to know how the word of the goepl Jeus relates to a real person. There is no way to know if what we have as Paul's writings reflect his original writings.

The oblivious issue with Chrtianity is the power it continues to wield in culture and politics, so the h story is important. And given the sparse words of Jesusin the gospels Paul is influential.

A to Popper he was one of the few modern philosophers I found useful. His description of the social process of science and what constitutes objective scientific knowledge in many ways matched my experience in science and engineering.

For me Popper had practical value. Same with Descartes and others.

 

[DBT]

Galatians 1:12

"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

 

[steve_bank]

Endless philosophizing with no end goal. Truth is not what Pearl appears to be looking for, he is putting on a show.

Do you mean to tell me that your customary chain-of-consciousness word salad in this thread is supposed to be some sort of grandiose search for Truth? Because that is definitely not what comes across. You deride philosophy, but philosophy has its uses. It organizes thought, helps one identify biases, avoid logical fallacy, and exposes you to ideas about the universe beyond what you were raised with. All the things a philosopher does - reading, writing, thinking, talking - are things that everyone else does too. Philosophers just do all those things better, because they've invested time in getting to know their own mind and researching topics of interest.

Another one of periodic rocks thrown my way? Of no consequence.

Your statement on philosophy is a standard one. A lot of what was once philosophy is now modern science, psychology, sociology, linuistics. Based in part in experiment. Metaphysics was no longer enough.

The political science and philosophy classes I had as an exercise taught me how to organize and present an idea and defend it. P;us explore to basic principles.

But one does not need philosophy. Students might take Phil 101 to satisfy a credit requirement.

Math, baseness, science, and engineering classes teach organization. Time management is important.

A philosophy teacher I had told me if I wanted to be competent in philosophy I'd have to absorb around 25 books and pick up French or German. Didn't appeal to me.

I never said philosophy has no value. Endless debate on unsolvable issues and definitions to me are a good mental exercise, but pointless.

I object to the use of the terms philosophy and science as a kind of monolithic entities that are some kind of active agents.

In philosophy one has to be specific. Aesthetics, logic, ethics and morality, rliegion, metaphysics and so on.

Philosophy is a top level category, so to me saying 'philosophy teaches..,,' has no real meaning. And that is my objection to how pood uses the word. Pood will say 'all is philosophy'.

Is the mythology class you teach under philosophy?

The thread was derailed by Pearl and NHC.