straw man fallacy and quit abusing the term with such frequency.
In short: when I intentionally misrepresent an opponent's argument with the intent of attacking this misrepresentation, I am committing a straw man fallacy. For example if, in the context of this discussion, I'd said, "Now, Christians will tell you that the universe was made by a man named Jesus Christ..." and subsequently went on to cite research questioning Jesus' existence, that would be a straw man fallacy.
I've pointed out that many spiritualists, eager to attribute the unexplained to God, have had to content themselves with an increasingly narrow field of the unexplained, a phenomenon referred to as the God of the Gaps. I didn't make this up, and I'm not willfully distorting anyone's stance. Pointing out a lack of logical rigor does not constitute a straw man fallacy.
Assuming you're not being facetious, this demonstrates a lack of distinction between two fundamentally different interpretations of the word.Hmmm, well, let's see:
"I feel hungry, there it is true that I am hungry."
Yep, that seems to work...
To clarify: I believe, as I've stated, that only rational thought (here in the Jungian sense) is suited to the task of telling us anything real about the reality we inhabit. There are certain pursuits (artistic, in particular) where a greater attentiveness to our subjective emotional experiences of reality are more appropriate, but these are not my concern. I'll be the first to admit that I, to a degree partially conscious and partially unconscious, have sacrificed artistic development for intellectual rigor. Many people who've made the opposite sacrifice are unwilling to acknowledge this, and hastily label the areas of their world view that have gone untended to, so to speak, "spirituality" and pat themselves on the back.Are you sure you're not just trying to justify your own lack of balance with regards to T and F?
Your problem, once again, is your assumption that an openness to the idea of the Divine is caused by a "preoccupation with emotional responses".
As I said, that notion is ridiculous.
My openness is actually bred by reason, and my reason's own understanding of the limits of reason.
Given that you posited Kant's statement as the end of the line, as though he had no notable successors, yes, I felt it worthwhile to bring Schopenhauer into this.You really want to bring Schopenhauer into this?
The fact of the matter is that Kant's "separate providence" argument stands.
All you can do, in light of it, is call it a "cop-out".
Oh, how rigorous of you...
And here's my take, again, on the separate providences argument: anything we can know about this reality, we know on the basis of empirical evidence as filtered through our sense organs and fed through our psychological apparatus. Even the basic premise that we live in a reality of some sort that somehow came into being -- was arrived at on the basis of sensory data. Everything we know is on the basis of sensory data, and any claim we can make about our shared reality can only be supported on the basis of empirical evidence and sound reasoning. Even the religious recognize this, as they're quick to adopt any line of reasoning which supports those things they've selected to believe, but the simple fact is that intuitions and emotions do not provide any real data. Intuitions have, as their material, contents filtered in through the sensory organs and psychological apparatus. Emotions are in response to contents filtered in through the sensory organs and psychological apparatus.
In fact, I would encourage you, in the spirit of sound thinking, to rigorously search the contents of your mind for anything with no basis in contents as filtered through the sense organs and the psychological apparatus.
At any rate, if you can demonstrate either that Jung was mistaken and we can devote our limited free psychological energy to objective phenomenon and our emotional responses to these phenomenon equally and to equal efficacy, or can demonstrate that emotional responses to objective phenomenon do, in fact, tell us something real about the universe as we experience it, I assure you in sincerity that I'd read it with interest.
As it stands, the spirit of your post is clearly not one of iron sharpening iron but of competitive quibbling, and I'll not respond to any post that doesn't address either of the above areas of contention.