/lit/ - Literature

>>19976113
Yah, epistemologically there is a difference.

In fact delusion and therefor illusion is usually misunderstood. For if you sense something, it is there by all measures of reason. We only say something is an illusion when we mean that it is only a partial truth. A rainbow is in one sense an illusion, but it is real insofar as it is an actual light phenomenon of rain and sunlight (which we proclaim as actual because the rain and sun seem like a fuller[but not complete, simply practical] grasp of practical reality).
An illusion is a partial understanding of reality as understood by the subject. A practicalist simply leaves everything beyond empiricism as not worth commenting on either way.

While faith is the level of trust you have in particular realities. In fact I would call them inverse termonologies in regards to a subject. Absolute Faith would be something you validate over anything else, and as such you validate it over causation (which Hume proved is only practical and not actual. x seems to happen given y and z), something that Is a priori to reason. And as such if you bend faith to reason it is no longer faith absolute. It is then better to be faithful to the absurd as it proves that your faith is an absolute, a perfect form, a sole edifice from which all else both reasoned and unreason can spring forth from.

Just to give you my two cents, I think theoretically, a level of faith is required for practicality to spring up from. And that materialism is downstream of idealism and is more a subset of. we take it on faith that x and y will probably precede z.

Absolute faith exists regardless of context or even facets of basic observable reality, through and beyond intuition. Of course, this doesnt mean a particular Absolute faith can be determined as all of them are absolutes in their own frame, and to imply otherwise would be to create a false equity.