This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@ArishMell Great answer.
Francis Schaeffer coined the term 'line of despair' to describe this. Below the line we have empirical evidence. Mathematics. History. Sciences: Geology. Physics... But it can only describe for us the how and when. So above the line are questions of meaning, morality (in empirical sense, not relatively defined), questions of spiritual nature... Whether I am an atheist or religious I can derive morality or meaning above the line in different ways but it remains open to - hopefully - respectful debate, discussion and disagreement.
Francis Schaeffer coined the term 'line of despair' to describe this. Below the line we have empirical evidence. Mathematics. History. Sciences: Geology. Physics... But it can only describe for us the how and when. So above the line are questions of meaning, morality (in empirical sense, not relatively defined), questions of spiritual nature... Whether I am an atheist or religious I can derive morality or meaning above the line in different ways but it remains open to - hopefully - respectful debate, discussion and disagreement.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Abstraction Thankyou.
I'd not seen Francis Schaeffer's idea previously but it's an interesting way to think of it. I'm not sure why "despair" though.
I'd not seen Francis Schaeffer's idea previously but it's an interesting way to think of it. I'm not sure why "despair" though.
thewindupbirdchronicles · 46-50, M
@Abstraction But one could argue those are moveable tangents of our understandings now, which of course are much more attenuated, nuanced then when the idea of God was created. I doubt Cohen was a dumb man, never believed in the scientific method, instead look for a spiritual answer, ascertaining these rigid ideas, we love now, become themselves, but obstacles.... but this comes full circle on the value of art vs science. And in this time, there is little appreciation for art; which mirrors lack of respect of faith.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@ArishMell 'Despair' - giving up all hope of achieving a rational unified answer to knowledge and life. We enter a pluralism. He considered Hegel opened the door to this with - instead of thesis and antithesis (A is not non-A) - he looked to synthesis - dialectical thinking. He thought Kierkegaard took it the next level by saying we can only reach meaning by a, 'leap of faith.'
[i]“The leap is common to every sphere of modern man’s thought. Man is forced to the despair of such a leap because he cannot live merely as a machine . . . If below the line man is dead, above the line, after the non-rational leap, man is left without categories. There are no categories because categories are related to rationality and logic. There is therefore no truth and no nontruth in antithesis, no right or wrong – you are adrift.” (Escape From Reason, 241, 256).[/i]
* I appreciate that picking up any philosophical writing midstream leaves lots of helpful clarifications out. Certainly, below the line we are machines, animals. Meaning can be sought in spiritual or non-spiritual ways - but it is not empirical knowledge. Above the line is also what @thewindupbirdchronicles is alluding to.
[i]“The leap is common to every sphere of modern man’s thought. Man is forced to the despair of such a leap because he cannot live merely as a machine . . . If below the line man is dead, above the line, after the non-rational leap, man is left without categories. There are no categories because categories are related to rationality and logic. There is therefore no truth and no nontruth in antithesis, no right or wrong – you are adrift.” (Escape From Reason, 241, 256).[/i]
* I appreciate that picking up any philosophical writing midstream leaves lots of helpful clarifications out. Certainly, below the line we are machines, animals. Meaning can be sought in spiritual or non-spiritual ways - but it is not empirical knowledge. Above the line is also what @thewindupbirdchronicles is alluding to.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Abstraction Well, I think the despair is in the minds of some very unhappy philosophers; but society now does seem to like putting people into categories, at least at Earthly level.
Whether we use religion or not, my approach is to enjoy the good sides of the lives and world around us as we have, not try to fit ourselves into gloomy philosophical categories.
Whether we use religion or not, my approach is to enjoy the good sides of the lives and world around us as we have, not try to fit ourselves into gloomy philosophical categories.