Do you think the Leap of Faith is really a good philosophy or an Immanent onr
>>24939908>Leap of faith good philosophy?Easily, yes. It's the standout philosophy for life.>Why?Easy. Example: Your wife goes to the grocery store -- you didn't see her go to the grocery store -- but she returned 35 minutes later with groceries . . .>So?Are you going to interrogate her and ask if she was f*cking another man while she was out?>No.Because that hinders love. That defying of reason hinders love.If God wants us to love, He will have us love in a way wherein we choose reason and live/abide all our years satisfied with associating with reason. -- God seems implicit but there are hurdles with empirical verification. -- Do we give up on Him because of a lack of a little piece of knowledge? . . . Or is that verification a trifle?
>>24939908christians are cucks either way
>>24941398>cuck! cuck! cuck!Shut up hen
its basically saying "to be believe in god you need to lobotomize your self" which is true and based. but also respectable, theres nothing more cringe than performative religion
>>24939908>Call it a leap of faith>The leap of faith is... reasonedWhy can't people admit there is nothing besides reason?
>>24939908me personally, I like it. i don’t like seeing the face of a grifter who sold his soul on the head of my philosophy husbando though.
>>24939908philosophy means 'love of wisdom', or more figuratively 'truth-seeking'. if you're doing a 'leap of faith', you're hardly doing anything related to wisdom or truth.
>>24942567retard
>>24941197>defying of reasonthe paranoid suspicions of habitual prudence aren't reasonings
>>24942567I wonder how it feels to be a Christ-cult member and read something so blatantly true. "Religion is a nursery of fanatics."
I am worried God will punish me for believing something I believe to be false in terms of the relevant facts not being true simply because I find it emotionally compelling.He points to the figure of Abraham and Jacob but you need to make a leap of faith to even accept that story as true
>>24942838If prudence isn't reason, everybody, and every animal even, wouldn't survive a week. Prudence is aboriginal in nature.
>>24943002>Aboriginal in nature.*As is reason/function. These trvth based things are what life is formed around.
>>24939908The thing with Kierkegaard compared to other Christian philosophers is that he actually understands what is asked of someone when you are dealing with faith. That is the whole point, if you are dealing with reason and trying to derive your own faith by rationality, then you aren't dealing with faith. It is just a matter of objective knowledge. You aren't committed if you are using probabilities and wagers to ground your 'faith'. I agree with him.
>>24941197Install a tracking chip in her car.
Pretty much everything requires a leap of faith at some point. Fedoras who think otherwise have no life experience.
>>24941197Excellent post.
>>24939908>lack of a little piece of knowledgeThe word "little" is much like Atlas.If you had known God for a number of years (personally) through courting & marriage. If you & your wife had routinely done chores which involved being away from each-other. If when you saw eachother again you had evidently done said chores.>He will have us love in a way wherein we choose reason Great, and he'll know even if my reasoning is flawed that I'm happy for Him to discuss it politely with me :)
>>24943402To some extent, but you are underestimating the size of some leaps. This is what Kierkegaard actually gets that other Christian philosophers weirdly don't seem to understand. I don't know if we are that different, or they are terribly good at coping and ignoring the elephant in the room.
>>24943002>>24943009but none of that makes them the same. reasoning as a guided process toward some normative or desirable end (reasoning can be guided by values, for example) as opposed to prudence as an embodied habitude to the sequence of stimuli. prudentia does not only refer to caution but more to habitual expectation. prudence is the reason bayesians believe humans are bad at reasoning about probabilities: all of reason's resources concerning probabilities, until they come from definitional knowledge derived from scientific observations of statistical regularities, are based on the imagination's basically paranoid attitude toward the sequence of stimuli. prudence encourages the imagination to open itself to deliberation by imagining not just the best possibilities but all possibilities of a consequent action. on the one hand, the inclination toward the openness inherent in action and decision disposes us toward futurity, but, on the other, it predisposes us to reasoning errors owing to the essentially fictitious nature of its undecidable speculative constructions. with prudence we are not authors, we're more like oedipa maas walking the train tracks. the products of prudence are not willful actions but indecision and deliberation. reason steps in to cut prudence short.
>>24943161>muh faith reason dichotomy
