/lit/ - Literature

>>17563477
What is the Transcendental Argument?

bumperino

>>17563492
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), not to be confused with a God-of-the-gaps argument (which is a fallacy), simply removes all objections and excuses for not believing in God. TAG is a presuppositional argument and critiques the presuppositions of other world views. Everyone presupposes something (e.g., a precommitment in using logic, reason, evidence, making arguments, etc.). In other words, there is no one who is presuppositionally neutral when it comes to factual questions and experience. The use of reason, logic, evidence, arguments is not something proven by experience. It is that by which one proceeds to prove everything else. However, one nevertheless has to ground and justify that reason, logic, and arguments work and are valid operations for what they think these operations can obtain and establish (this is a meta-logical analysis). The problem is that man, locked within his own sphere of reason, cannot appeal to what is in question (i.e., reason, logic, and arguments) to establish that reason, logic, and arguments are valid and work. This would be to engage in the fallacy of circular reasoning ("question begging") and epistemic bootstrapping. A Transcendental Argument, therefore, attempts to discover the preconditions for the possibility of reason, logic, and argumentation. It does this by taking some aspect of human rationality and investigates what must be true (i.e., the necessary condition) in order for valid rational processes to be possible. Transcendental arguments typically have the following form: For x to be the case, y must also be the case, since y is the precondition (or the necessary condition) of x. Since x is the case, y is the case.

(1/2)

>>17563532
What the TAG demonstrates is that there is only one unique condition that will satisfy the conditions for the possibility of knowledge, rationality, logic, and arguments. The necessary precondition (what must be presupposed) in order to have knowledge, logic, and arguments is the Orthodox Christian God as He has revealed Himself to us (revelation therefore is required since we are unable to get out of the epistemic quagmire of circularity). In other words, the TAG argues from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary of Orthodox Christianity (any view that denies the Orthodox Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible. And if the negation of Orthodox Christianity is false, then Orthodox Christianity is proved true. That is to say, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism. Either A or not-A; not-not-A; therefore A.

Consequently, if TAG establishes that Orthodox Christianity is the necessary conceptual precondition for rationality, logic, and argumentation, then it follows that we must hold (presuppose) the Orthodox Christian worldview as it has been revealed to us in order to be rational. Furthermore, if someone refuses to accept the Orthodox Christian worldview or God’s existence, then they have no foundation for rationality and, without such a foundation, they have no rational basis for mounting an objection against TAG or the conclusion of TAG, that the Orthodox notion of God (which is not a generic theistic notion of God, but a God unique only to Orthodoxy, the only condition that satisfies the demands set out) does not exist. Therefore, God of Orthodox Christianity exists.

(2/2)

>>17563477
>perennialist
A what?
>Have any pagan perennialists answered what Jay Dyer is saying or not? How can a pagan justify his presupposition of logic?
What does he say? And what does this mean?

>>17563574
>A what?
Like Evola or Guenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School

>What does he say? And what does this mean?
See >>17563532 >>17563542

Jay believes Orthodoxy is the only coherent worldview.

>>17563542
I don't understand how this proves specifically the Orthodox Christian God, and how are we supposed to trust the revelations of Christianity that came from Judaism, whose mythical origins have been traced to older cultures, like the Sumerians and Babylonians, and whose god is combination of El and Baal, ancient Hebrew gods.

>only my super special unique brand of Christianity is the right religion/way of life

>>17563532
>>17563542
What do you think of Saint Thomas Aquinas' answer to the question of the necessity of sacred doctrine?

>>17563723
>whose mythical origins have been traced to older cultures, like the Sumerians and Babylonians, and whose god is combination of El and Baal, ancient Hebrew gods.
They deny that. They say it is an argument of consensus

>>17563747
Lmao, to be fair it's the second biggest denomination of Christianity.

>>17563615
Neither of them are perennialists. For them a tradition is only valid as far as it reflects the Vedas and nothing that goofy pagan does. Evola is especially brutal to "pagan revivals" precisely because they have nothing traditional about them.

>>17563747
People disagree therefore there is no truth.

>>17563833
Jay has deboonked Aquinas as well

>>17563837
There are people such as Survive the Jive who are Traditionalist perennialist anglo saxon pagans

>>17563477
The guy isn’t perennialist really. He’s not really anything. He thinks he’s a pagan but he doesn’t really have any justification for his worldview, as is the case with many “pagans”, and Mr. Dyer just playfully exposed that in this video is all. He is not arguing along the lines of either René Guenon or Julius Evola. He does however have a debate with a Perennialist in anothe video which is a little bit closer to them than this guy.

>>17563723
The transcendental argument doesn’t argue in favor of specifically the Orthodox God. Jay does make that argument but it requires steps beyond the transcendental argument. What the transcendental argument basically argues is that a worldview which includes the pre-supposition that God does not exist and yet accepts the existence of transcendentals such as logic is itself illogical. It’s more of a refutation of empirical atheism than anything else but it could imply that a “pagan” worldview which isn’t actually grounded on a logical basis or is but denies God is also illogical.

>>17563846
Survive the Jive is not Evola or Guenon. He's a fucking clown.

>>17563846
Survive the Jive has a poor understanding of these things and is probably a bit nuts himself.

bumpin'

>>17563864
>>17563866
He's incredibly based and his videos are up-to-date, accurate and very entertaining. If you disagree because you're a libshit then I really don't give a shit.

>>17563477
>Have any pagan perennialists answered what Jay Dyer is saying or not?
There are no pagan perennialists, only perennialists with certain pagan affinities. Julius Evola is the most notable one as far as I know and it’s simply not accurate to describe him as a pagan, despite what some claim.
>How can a pagan justify his presupposition of logic?
They can’t but it’s a loaded question. Plato was a pagan and it could be argued that Plato offered a response to the argument.

>>17563925
And this is a thinly veiled attempt at subversive discreditation thread obviously. That or you’re Thomas and if that’s the case, Thomas, you need to actually read the books you appeal to in justifying your scientific paganism.

>youtube debate about theology
Who gives a flying fuck lmao

>>17563846
Can you explain how he has "debunked" Aquinas? More specifically, could you address the question on the necessity of scripture?

>>17563946
> dude theology is gay
> posts a Roerich painting off Buddha
It’s mind boggling how dumb some of you are honestly.

>>17563947
Well he explained how from a christian standpoint, theological ideas proposed by Aquinas are wrong.
> the question on the necessity of scripture?
Can you phrase what the question is? I haven't read St Aquina's take on this.

>>17563946
It was a more general question. The video was to understand what tactics Jay is using.

>>17564015
It's the first question of the Summa. Can you summarize Jay's argument against Aquinas? Which particular ideas does he reject?

>>17563947
He has a lot of videos critiquing Roman Catholic theology and Aquinas from a pretty typical Orthodox perspective. Just search “Dyer Aquinas” and watch them.

>>17563954
>uhhh this debate over which tradtard should get to violently impose his schizo ramblings in an ideal society is super serious

>>17564027
Could you summarize anything for me? Or point me to one particular video you find very strong? How much Catholic theology are you familiar with independent of Jay's videos?

>>17564031
> hurr durr I’m a retard please take my bait
Here’s your second (you)

Why are Orthodox such attention whores

>>17564026
He is a palamist and rejects absolute simplicity.

>>17564073
Thanks for the (You). I offer it up to my personal household gods, unmolested by your despostic revelationary counter-religions

>>17564080
No presence in Anglo discourse whatsoever since the English were baptized by the Romans, so they need to be loud and flashy.

>>17564087
I'm not particularly familiar with Eastern theological disputes, so I'm not sure I understand what this controversy is, nor how Aquinas fits into it. Could you explain a little more?

>>17563844
Based Sextus Empiricus poster.
>“Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.”
― Sextus Empiricus

>>17564110
Pic related is the Orthodox view.

>>17564066
> Could you summarize anything for me? Or point me to one particular video you find very strong?
There are honestly so many. It’s difficult to even do in this medium.
https://youtu.be/PGGDTG5vlxY
https://youtu.be/7LhOmqb95nM
https://youtu.be/PIi1VIg1HB8
https://youtu.be/Hd2uICRds2w
https://youtu.be/P3hprH0oc_I
https://youtu.be/0IOO5k7X1pA

You might like that last one for being succinct. The guy knows his philosophy, but he doesn’t really write philosophy or apologetics so you just have to watch his videos if you want to parse it. Ignore his conspiracy theory stuff. He does a good job of presenting Orthodox positions. As far as I know, he doesn’t reject Aquinas in totality. It’s not like Orthodox maintain that Aquinas is totally worthless. It’s just that there’s a tradition there which is flawed and thus many of the arguments derived from that are flawed is the viewpoint. I think he particularly harps on Divine Simplicity.
> How much Catholic theology are you familiar with independent of Jay's videos?
There’s undoubtedly people far more familiar than me on this board but some. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, altar boy, went to Catholic school through college, family in clergy, nuns, etc, did read and study here and there not rigorously. I fell out of it in college. I’m actually not Orthodox but the failure to distinguish essence and energies and just a rejection of papism were part of the justification for my departure I guess.

>>17564080
They are confident and passionate about their theology and christology. That’s an admirable position. The reason you see them is they have a platform in the West for the first time in a very long time and people are noticing them.

>>17564118
I don't believe him.

>>17564154
based

>>17564152
Nah, I notice them because they are obnoxious but you are clearly biased.

>>17564166
Okay, dude. They’re obnoxious because you say so. The thread isn’t for you I guess so just move along.

>>17564171
On the other hand they are confident, passionate and admirable because you say so.

>>17563532
>>17563542
I agree with the argument until:
>The necessary precondition (what must be presupposed) in order to have knowledge, logic, and arguments is the Orthodox Christian God
Other preconditions are available, i.e., an Absolute divorced from organized religion.

>>17564199
> *gives reasons why they’re admirable*
> *gives no reasons why they’re annoying*
> dude they’re the same thing
Just stop. Assuming you aren’t OP and OP actually wants answers, all you’re doing is dumbing this down now and this thread clearly isn’t for you anyway.

>>17564205
Would such a person be a deist? Is there anyone that actually defends the deist position

>>17564218
>they are admirable because they spend their time antagonizing other groups and are always trying to dismantle their notions
>but you can't say this is obnoxious

>>17563532
>>17563542
Have Sex

>>17564141
What is a divine energy?

>>17564239
silence american

>>17564233
> they spend their time antagonizing other groups
What are you even talking about?

>>17564080
It's just theological hipsterism. Ignore them.

>>17563946
Based.

>>17564147
I appreciate the helpfulness. Though, for the sake of this thread, what would Jay, or you say about Aquinas' answer to the question of the necessity of scripture?

>>17564230
Most arguments for the existence of God only support a deistic or basic theistic view. Further argumentation is required to support the Christian position, not the other way around.

>>17564262
You mean Aquinas’ idea that first principles come from scripture, prima Scriptura? Orthodox don’t place scripture above or below the Holy Tradition. It’s the written part of the Holy Tradition but the Holy Tradition is also expressed in the life of the Church. So scripture holds authority because it’s a part of the Holy Tradition, not above it. They all act in symphonia. I don’t know what Jay Dyer’s actual argumentation is but I would imagine it’s along those lines.

>>17564387
I don't think that's an accurate representation of what Aquinas says. Have you read the question?

>>17564401
I think so, but like I said I fell out of it quite a while ago and I know there are more knowledgeable people here so you can elaborate if you’d like.

>>17564410
I'm sorry, I think I've accidentally been confusing the thread. I mean to be asking about Aquinas' answer on the necessity of Sacred Doctrine, not scripture. (There isn't a question on scripture in that way.) Aquinas says that there are certain truths which need to be divinely revealed, because human reason can go only so far, and even that which could be known by reason would be difficult to achieve and not known by many men, further necessitating the need for revelation. I apologize for the mental error.

>>17564473
If that’s the case, I think Orthodox are in agreement, at least on that point since they also rely on revelation. If you’re still curious, I think where the departure is what constitutes divine revelation. I think for Catholics, revelation was delivered to us via scripture but Orthodox maintain that revelation was not merely scripture. It was first and foremost the living person Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, “and the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). So as a result, revelation exists likewise in the Eucharist, the icons, the councils, and those expressions of the unwritten Tradition that exists in the church. Hence, why scripture is not given primacy as I said before.

>>17564239
Shut up you snipped amerimutt

>>17564886
>>17564253
you will never be global powers

>>17564249
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction
This wikipedia article is surprisingly good

>>17564898
You're either a negro, a spic or a libshit white. That's an insult in itself

>>17564913
yeah yeah, you better tone down or we'll export more liberal twitter propaganda to your nations. Be a good goy

>>17564928

arguing over theology has nothing to do with religion
religion is just praying and making offerings to the gods
christians are autistic and their denial of other gods inevitably leads to full-blown atheism

>>17563532
>>17563542
what part of that proves i should worship a dead jew and a god who tells people to cut up their dicks?

Polytheism is so fucking retarded

>>17565654
Well, watch the debate. You should also check his debate with mark brahmin.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DRdZF2s3DWZn/

>>17564147
>Jay Dyer vs. Trad Cath Twitter account
people watch this garbage?

>>17565938
I see you ignored literally all of the other videos.

>>17565954
you'll also notice my comment does not apply to any of the other videos, retard

>>17564147
I'm shocked to find out that the orthodox reject divine simplicity. I thought it was a necessary condition for all Christianity

>>17563925
>Fucked me a Leb

>>17564080
Theres just a handful of western ortho converts. Seems to me most of the orthodox church doesnt really do much preaching or evangalizing. A ton of my neighbors are orthodox and I only know because they had their christimas celebrations in January. It seems like a very modest and quiet religion

>>17563864
Thanks for sharing your worthless opinion but feel free not to next time.

>>17566018
No.

>>17563477
That guy was more of a identitarian than perennialist. He didn't seem to have a good grasp of philosophy.

i liked the bit when the fat pagan starts ranting about wanting to drown homosexuals in bogs and an exasperated Dyer has to cut him off

>>17563945
I think you need to actually listen to STJ before you instruct him on what to read. wtf is "scientific paganism" ?? he never said that.

seems STJ knows Evola and Guenon pretty well but he specifically states that he is not an Evolian but just influenced by Evola and Guenon. He openly rejects the respective bullshit that each of them have said - such as Evola's lunar/solar Aryan dichotomy and Guenon's ridiculous understanding of race.

>>17563532
>>17563542
>>17563477
Stupid Americans. Not even worth watching.

Can someone with a basic grasp of logic give the 'transcendental' argument in the form of premises and a conclusion? The way I see it phrased in natural language is always ambiguous, and I have a suspicion it may be question begging.

>>17563925