Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 14:11:18 GMT -5
"Personalism: a system of thought that maintains the primacy of the human or divine person on the basis that reality has meaning only through the conscious mind." what is the source of this definition? It was just a dictionary definition. There are a bunch of definitions of it from a myriad of philosophical encyclopedias, but they all have the same thust: all reality is only intelligible through the human conscious. Hence the name of philosophy: personalism. This can have a good and a bad interpretation, and phenomenology (when applied to the theological realm) is the bad interpretation, since it them includes revelation as part of this "reality" spoken of by personalism. This reality includes even the truths revealed to the Apostles, in which case they were only true from them, but Christ personally reveals Himself to us in His own unique and personal way. Hence, we place our own private, personal revelation above that given to us by the magisterium. That gets very dangerous and is in fact how we got in this mess to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 18, 2018 14:45:40 GMT -5
He didn't. Revelation was to the Apostles and ended with St. John's Apocalypse. The Church teaches that that was the end of Christ's revelation to mankind. We receive grace by which we internally accept this external revelation, but the revelation isn't personally given to us in some cloud-like third heaven; it was given to the Apostles, and we simply believe what they have passed down: the deposit of faith they preached to the whole world--some by seeing, some by hearing. God then works within us interiorly by which He moves us to assent and believe with Faith the truths we have heard with our ears or read with our eyes. I understood thats what you were refering to...but you said it too Generally. Yes the last Revelation was from John....but that is a specific thing...I said that. Fess our problem is you are a very very very literal person. I am a more of a poetical person. Which is I think due to our different Catholic Rites. Romans are very literal...which is good except when its ALL THE TIME. Nuff said the argument is over.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 18, 2018 14:54:00 GMT -5
The idea that God personally reveals truth to us from within is a modernist error (and might even be condemned as a heresy). Christ reveals His doctrine through hearing (or the Apostles wouldn't have wasted their time preaching) and then uses His grace internally to assent to what we cannot see. The enlightment of the intellect through the ears to hear and eyes to see happens first externally before the will can assent by grace internally. The revelation comes from without; the will to assent to it comes from within. If God doesnt personally reveal truth to us (I dont mean "new revelations" I mean simple Truths) In case you missed this where I specifically pointed out I wasnt talking about "Revelations"...as per Johns last revelation.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 15:16:12 GMT -5
If God doesnt personally reveal truth to us (I dont mean "new revelations" I mean simple Truths) In case you missed this where I specifically pointed out I wasnt talking about "Revelations"...as per Johns last revelation. Well, revelation refers to the process by which the supernatural truths of Christianity are known. I contend that knowing these truths happens by means of the magisterium, and belief in them happens by grace, whereas natural truths are known by means of natural reason. So the magisterium (the ultimate authority of which is the pope) tells us what the Apostles really taught as well as how what they taught is reconcilable with itself and is internally consistent. We have infallible guarantee that what it gives us is infallibly safe. If we didn't have that guarantee, then we would forever be divided as a Church based on which things each one of us privately determine are erroneous. I could decide that I don't agree with the dogma of papal infallibility, and so I would reject Vatican I as being a false council. I would have every moral right to do this, since I would argue that there is nothing that guarantees it being free from error and hence I might actually be right. But then this is no different from the Protestants: there is no principle of unity that prevents any individual from crying fowl and accusing the teaching authority of error at any given time. The laity rule the Church in that case, and there are as many divisions as there are divergent opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 15:17:09 GMT -5
He didn't. Revelation was to the Apostles and ended with St. John's Apocalypse. The Church teaches that that was the end of Christ's revelation to mankind. We receive grace by which we internally accept this external revelation, but the revelation isn't personally given to us in some cloud-like third heaven; it was given to the Apostles, and we simply believe what they have passed down: the deposit of faith they preached to the whole world--some by seeing, some by hearing. God then works within us interiorly by which He moves us to assent and believe with Faith the truths we have heard with our ears or read with our eyes. I understood thats what you were refering to...but you said it too Generally. Yes the last Revelation was from John....but that is a specific thing...I said that. Fess our problem is you are a very very very literal person. I am a more of a poetical person. Which is I think due to our different Catholic Rites. Romans are very literal...which is good except when its ALL THE TIME. Nuff said the argument is over. Yes, I am. It's how my brain works.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 18, 2018 23:35:24 GMT -5
I thank God for it...if poets like me ran the world....>>>>shudder<<<<
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 8:22:40 GMT -5
I thank God for it...if poets like me ran the world....>>>>shudder<<<< On the contrary, you thank Him that we have poets like yourself. What would you do if the whole world were literalists like myself? 😥
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 19, 2018 9:47:37 GMT -5
The trains would run on time.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 8:40:24 GMT -5
The trains would run on time. But then the poets would be late!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 9:15:49 GMT -5
Do you know what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is? If so, do you understand how it applies to this line of reasoning? If you read a little bit about that fallacy, I think you might better see how it is problematic for traditionalists who argue this way. I am here going to make a point that I hope not only you, but Voxx and all others read. I am not the moderator, but I think it would be great if the moderators would put in a rule (not only here but on every forum.) The rule would be helpful if it made a point that if one is going to accuse another of using any logical fallacy, it does not actually prove the fallacy by merely mentioning the fallacy. I feel one needs to point out what specifically the other has said that actually fits the fallacy; i.e. "you said this" and then "concluded this" and thus you used the fallacy of "______". Otherwise it confuses the readers who follow posts and most forum members do not want to have to go back to Philosophy 101 to try and figure out what one said (somewhere in a long thread that fit the fallacy.) Voxx shut down the other thread I started by accusing me of "chock full of non-sequiturs" without saying what exactly I said that was/were non-sequiturs and how they fit. Now you accuse him of the No True Scotsman fallacy, without actually saying what he said fits the no true scotsman fallacy. This leaves one to either have to go back and re-read pages of the argument to even see if it happened. Please state what he specifically said that fits the no true scotsman fallacy and how. Otherwise don't make mention it actually happened. It is unfair to the other side in a debate/discussion. I'm not particularly appreciative of being told I committed a "fallacy" on a post that is also subsequently locked down so I cannot respond. I also don't enjoy watching people being accused of committing fallacies without an actual explanation of how or in which way their argument fits the fallacy. So if you could please explain to everyone in which way or what Voxx said that fits "the no true scotsman" fallacy, then it would help readers follow the post. In case you're wondering, I know what the "no true scotsman fallacy" is.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 9:30:09 GMT -5
I didn't accuse him of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I asked him if he knew what it is, not rhethorically and sarcastically as you have read it, but instead I asked it exactly as it is written. "Do you know what ___ is?" It is a straightforward, genuine question intended to be nothing more than a way by which I might have a better idea of how to better explain my OP. If I wanted to accuse him of it, I would have said, "That is the ___ fallacy."
I am a very literal person; I usually say exactly what I mean. Please don't read sarcasm or inflections into my post. (That last sentence was short because that's all I wanted to say in it. Don't read it with attitude as though I mean to be terse and abrupt.)
The fallacy is included in the incorrect argument of the OP, not in anything Voxx said. I needed to know if he was familiar with it already in order to save myself some time in explaining how it related to the argument that I made in the OP.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 9:39:27 GMT -5
I didn't accuse him of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I asked him if he knew what it is, not rhethorically and sarcastically as you have read it, but instead I asked it exactly as it is written. "Do you know what ___ is?" It is a straightforward, genuine question intended to be nothing more than a way by which I might have a better idea of how to better explain my OP. If I wanted to accuse him of it, I would have said, "That is the ___ fallacy." I am a very literal person; I usually say exactly what I mean. Please don't read sarcasm or inflections into my post. (That last sentence was short because that's all I wanted to say in it. Don't read it with attitude as though I mean to be terse and abrupt.) The fallacy is included in the incorrect argument of the OP, not in anything Voxx said. I needed to know if he was familiar with it already in order to save myself some time in explaining how it related to the argument that I made in the OP. I am telling you, as an outside observer, who tries to read a thread that is over 6 pages long, it is not helpful. If you are going to introduce a fallacy, allude to it, etc, you are going to have to explain why. So please explain why you are asking (or what part of your OP) it applies to and what the point of it is. Otherwise, I am telling you, it just confuses the conversation. Even if you're not accusing him of it, your question is a leading question. So for clarity, it would help if you would explain why you are introducing it at this point of the thread.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:36:50 GMT -5
I am allowed to ask questions on my thread that help me know how to proceed in helping someone better understand my OP. My question wasn't directed to you or posed to the whole world; it was directed to Voxx to help clarify his particular difficulty.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:39:12 GMT -5
I never got a chance to explain the fallacy's relation to the thread because we didn't get past the introductory question to that explanation, which question pertained to how much he knew about it so I would know how much of it I would need to explain.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:41:13 GMT -5
At this point in the thread, Voxx is going to post an interview he did with me regarding the OP. We will simply have to wait for him to post it.
|
|