Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wait, you mean I can finally answer a K with "God isn't real?" and win? TIME TO CASH IN ON MY REDDIT KARMA!!!!

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the second Milbank card is mistagged.  It is not an indict of rationalism, and in fact Milbank may even be a rationalist.  Rationalism should not be confused with a position that simply espouses using reason.  The alternative to rationalism is empiricism, and it's a distinction between whether you think it is better for an argument to proceed purely by logic from first principles (rationalism), or by reference to evidence from the world (empiricism).

 

I don't actually think Milbank is saying anything particularly on the question of empiricism vs. rationalism, although he's certainly not an empiricist.  

It sounds like his position is vaguely in the direction of Transcendentalism, and what he's criticizing is primarily metaphysical naturalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, you mean I can finally answer a K with "God isn't real?" and win? TIME TO CASH IN ON MY REDDIT KARMA!!!!

 

actually god isnt real isn't really responsive. a responsive arg would be "assuming/acting as if god is real is bad".

 

additionally, the evidence here is much more useful against authors like derrida, in which case the aff would not be extremely consistent with "god isnt real" [kinda the point of the strategy]

 

 

I'm pretty sure the second Milbank card is mistagged.  It is not an indict of rationalism, and in fact Milbank may even be a rationalist.  Rationalism should not be confused with a position that simply espouses using reason.  The alternative to rationalism is empiricism, and it's a distinction between whether you think it is better for an argument to proceed purely by logic from first principles (rationalism), or by reference to evidence from the world (empiricism).

 

I don't actually think Milbank is saying anything particularly on the question of empiricism vs. rationalism, although he's certainly not an empiricist.  

It sounds like his position is vaguely in the direction of Transcendentalism, and what he's criticizing is primarily metaphysical naturalism.

 

i cut these cards during lunchtime like two years ago and never thought about them again... but milbank is *most certainly* not a rationalist in any sense of the term. i think you are right that this card doesn't really say anything helpful though

 

edit: actually, I take that back. this card probably should just be merged with the one above it but certainly makes a card-worthy argument against rationalism/philosophies of pure reason, which definitely isn't the use of reason generally, but still indicts many strands of contemporary philosophy

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i cut these cards during lunchtime like two years ago and never thought about them again... but milbank is *most certainly* not a rationalist in any sense of the term. i think you are right that this card doesn't really say anything helpful though

 

Well, he's pretty blatantly not an empiricist.  I suppose if we're incorporating theology, we might need a third category, like Revelationism?  Although, if that's his schtick, i'm not able to tell from a brief perusal of the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he's pretty blatantly not an empiricist.  I suppose if we're incorporating theology, we might need a third category, like Revelationism?  Although, if that's his schtick, i'm not able to tell from a brief perusal of the cards.

'revelationism' would be a pretty good container, yeah. I think this is fairly apparent in most of those cards

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"-          No difference between ‘holocaust’ and ‘ice cream cone’ in your fw"

 

uh

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"-          No difference between ‘holocaust’ and ‘ice cream cone’ in your fw"

 

uh

 

If you're a vegan, what's the difference? 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a stupid, shitty, terrible argument. 

ok

 

 

GETTIN DEM Deleuze TURNS PREPPED 

 

this arg imo is one of the best answers to deleuze -- the RO people generally are the most in-depth critics of duns-scotus derived philosophy that ive ever seen

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They sections you cut seem to read more duns-scotus in Deleuze than there might be. Some of the intricacies of what Deleuze has to say is lost by this particular reading. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GETTIN DEM Deleuze TURNS PREPPED 

Free card for the lolz

 

Religion constitutes an imperial de jure State that fascistly regulates desire in the name of religious morality

Deleuze and Guattari 87 (A Thousand Plateaus pages 382-383)//AD

Making the absolute appear in a particular placeis that not a very general characteristic of religion (recognizing that the nature of the appearance, and the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the images that reproduce it are open to debate)? But the sacred place of religion is fundamentally a center that repels the obscure nomos. The absolute of religion is essentially a horizon that encompasses, and, if the absolute itself appears at a particular place, it does so in order to establish a solid and stable center for the global. The encompassing role of smooth spaces (desert, steppe, or ocean) in monotheism has been frequently noted. In short, religion converts the absolute. Religion is in this sense a piece in the State apparatus (in both of its forms, the "bond" and the "pact or alliance"), even if it has within itself the power to elevate this model to the level of the universal or to constitute an absolute Imperium. But for the nomad the terms of the question are totally different: locality is not delimited; the absolute, then, does not appear at a particular place but becomes a nonlimited locality; the coupling of the place and the absolute is achieved not in a centered, oriented globalization or universalization but in an infinite succession of local operations. Limiting ourselves to this opposition between points of view, it may be observed that nomads do not provide a favorable terrain for religion; the man of war is always committing an offense against the priest or the god. The nomads have a vague, literally vagabond "monotheism," and content themselves with that, and with their ambulant fires. The nomads have a sense of the absolute, but a singularly atheistic one. The universalist religions that have had dealings with nomads—Moses, Mohammed, even Christianity with the Nestorian heresy—have always encountered problems in this regard, and have run up against what they have termed obstinate impiety. These religions are not, in effect, separable from a firm and constant orientation, from an imperial de jure State, even, and especially, in the absence of a de facto State; they have promoted an ideal of sedentarization and addressed themselves more to the migrant components than the nomadic ones. Even early Islam favored the theme of the hegira, or migration, over nomadism; rather, it was through certain schisms (such as the Kharijl movement) that it won over the Arab or Berber nomads.57 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They sections you cut seem to read more duns-scotus in Deleuze than there might be. Some of the intricacies of what Deleuze has to say is lost by this particular reading. 

 

sure, i mean, some of the intricacies of religion are also lost in that d&g card. but the importance of univocity in deleuze as of difference & repetition should not be understated. this, imo, is one of the relatively few valid points that zizek identifies in OWB

 

there is a chapter in the RO reader called "the perversity of rationalism" or something to that effect by milbank which goes into a bit more detail I think (I haven't read it)

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History lesson.....Christianity was a method of the people.  It spent a bunch of years underground.  Christianity is waaaaay more people/movement/underground centric than the K. 

 

Jesus is the ultimate link turn to arguments like this.  He was a servant leader.  His model is of humility. 

 

Love, virtue, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you are 3 independent ways to solve all of your offense.  (not to mention the Jesus model above).

 

This link card is totalizing and essentializing....with zero warrant.  It asserts intentions without any grounded basis for a billion people on the planet. 

 

All humans are imperfect and tempted.  That results in a downward spiral of society--as empirically proven through history time and time again.  Only an ethic of love and empathy can solve.

 

Those people who manipulate the Bible to serve non-Jesus ends are manipulating it.  Freedom lovers and democracy lovers aren't responsible for those who manipulate those ideologies.  And those people need more Jesus, not less.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History lesson.....Christianity was a method of the people.  It spent a bunch of years underground.  Christianity is waaaaay more people/movement/underground centric than the K. 

 

Jesus is the ultimate link turn to arguments like this.  He was a servant leader.  His model is of humility. 

 

Love, virtue, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you are 3 independent ways to solve all of your offense.  (not to mention the Jesus model above).

 

This link card is totalizing and essentializing....with zero warrant.  It asserts intentions without any grounded basis for a billion people on the planet. 

 

All humans are imperfect and tempted.  That results in a downward spiral of society--as empirically proven through history time and time again.  Only an ethic of love and empathy can solve.

 

Those people who manipulate the Bible to serve non-Jesus ends are manipulating it.  Freedom lovers and democracy lovers aren't responsible for those who manipulate those ideologies.  And those people need more Jesus, not less.

This is what Alenka Zupancic, in The Shortest Shadow: Nieitzsche's Philosophy of the Two, describes as being some of the consequences of the Symbolic death of God - it means that because of the absence of power behind the religious rituals, others, for instance the Orthodox Church, use this absence of power to gain power for themselves; Zupanic describes it mostly in relation to the Spanish Inquisition and the Reformation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...