Thank you

“But I never ventured to inquire, and indeed rather cherished the mystery”

❤

I have tried to rationalize Christianity multiple times. As a "word study" guy ... an Aristotelian (who did his constructions thru rigorous analysis of Greek language). My current effort is examining the 300 most common word roots from the Septuagint and NT and selecting the top 100 of those for systemic contemplation.

CEEDUBZ!

Philosophy as a sort of ever evolving Scientism that rejects the static dogmatics of religions. The creaturely Sophia, at it's height in the revelation of the prophet. We ❤ Kroner!

1:43 except unless, the philosophic system is based on the idea that God is a person, unveiling truth deliberately, gradually, humbly, carefully through time. This type of philosophic system we call a ‘story’.

TLC needs more fart jokes.

There is still too much thinking at a distance from one's own thinking self about this quotation. The reason why philosophical theorization doesn't function like the theorization in the so-called special sciences is pretty straight-forward: while philosophizing one is thinking about oneself thinking about things, while with the special sciences one is thinking about things (including one's own self as a thing). I get depressed at these sort of analyses because they proceed as if the most important questions for philosophers to answer regard establishing what are the proper boundaries between academic disciplines. There is, of course, some precedence for this in classic Greek philosophy (e.g., in the texts of Aristotle) and in medieval philosophy (e.g., reflecting on the relationship between the trivium and the quadrivium). But this impulse towards boundary keeping between academic disciplines becomes especially pronounced especially in the modern German university and gets picked up in the Anglo-American world--and from their is replicated around the world. Academic faculties and departments get confused for real modes of human being/knowing. It's not the structure of the modern university that we should be paying attention to, but the meaning of embodiment. What does it mean for the Logos to be made concrete, become embodied, give shape to material reality? The reference to the "remarkable" thinker who talks about "being-in-the-world" is, I presume, to Heidegger? Interestingly, the author seemed to present his reflection on "being-in-the-world" as a critique of Heidegger. If you read the first few chapters of Being and Time, it is fairly obvious that Heidegger also understands that Dasein (that being which we all are) isn't in the world in the same way that beings which do not have the characteristic of Dasein (e.g., to have knowing as a mode of their being-in-the-world). It sounds the author wants to preserve a way of speaking about a self which transcends the mere perceptual/phenomenal/etc., Heidegger acknowledges the fundamental correctness of this impulse. It sounds as though the author does like Heidegger's ultimate destination and wants to carve out a place for theology and establish its relation to divine revelation. I think this is fundamentally misguided. The author places philosophy, theology, and divine revelation into abstract buckets of knowledge. The author does not stop to reflect on the fact that in every case it is the author who thinks about philosophy, theology, and divine revelation or that it is the author him- or herself who demands our attention.