Becoming Philosophical
Philosophy it seems can be either one of two things; a useful thinking tool or a treatise of gobbledygook only useful for lining the trash can.
As everything gets more bizarro so goes philosophy, its purpose no longer to aid understanding but to frustrate, and substitute with vain imaginings.
What’s more this nonsense constantly shift-shapes kicking the can of reason ever further down the road, yes the aberration of post-modernism started this mess.
The adage doubt is NOT the opposite of faith is not new but I’ll just say this; refer to a dictionary or thesaurus, they ARE opposites so skepticism and confidence can’t exist simultaneously, it’s either one or the other, besides holding two positions in tension is blatantly irrational, although there’s a new twist to this falsehood.
Only this time the big guns are trained on the offensive word certitude to be summed up as; certainty CANNOT exist without doubt.
Unfortunately secular philosophy has intertwined with religious faith in what is known as the philosophy of religion, begging the question, can and should these two disciplines be linked in any way at all?
One cardinal gave this homily at mass probably shocking those in attendance causing them to almost fall out of their pews.
One sin I have come to fear more than any other is certainty.
Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the great enemy of tolerance . . . Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt.
If there was only certainty, and if there was no doubt, there would be no mystery, and therefore no need for faith.
He misses the point by miles.
Mystery is NOT synonymous with doubt but with something not yet known, how you can’t doubt what you don’t know.. ………...
What is he saying, what part of his theology does he doubt? all of it?
In other words here’s another loose-lipped warbler insisting doctrinal belief is in itself a mystery, if that’s the case why does he even bother.
When the only mystery is why he’s there.
While certainty has been the gold standard in logical arguments for centuries indeed it’s the foundation of civilization, opinion is divided over whether to retain it only for certain subjects, barring religion, because no benefit of the doubt for that, and possibly other issues.
Certitude to some is a pick and choose concept to be used when convenient, while to others out-and-out cynicism is the default mode.
A question such as; if you wrong about certainty how can you be sure are answered with whimsies like; you have to account for the provisional nature of human knowledge and existence.
Not forgetting gems like; we have a theory of everything that explains all: cynicism.
Study should facilitate understanding in the search for truth; it’s not about accumulating useless information for it’s own sake or indulging in games of unproductive naval gazing ignoring how the pieces of the puzzle fit.
By always learning never coming to any understanding there’s no Eureka moment or light bulb realization, only the confused walk around in circles without any clue of the destination.
So, radical skepticism is in actual fact a dud.
Skeptics fought against certitude using reason as their excuse, then turned that skepticism against reason itself, killing the very thing they claimed they were trying to save.
