The Scale of Perfection, Book 2, Part 1 – Chapter 4

dohpeterchina's picture

That through the Sacrament of Baptism (which is grounded in the Passion of Christ) this Image is reformed from Original Sin

This is chapter 6 of The Scale of Perfection – Book 2 in Middle English:
That thorugh the sacrament of baptym that is groundid in the passioun of Crist this image is reformed fro the original synne.

I'm surprised

I'm surprised you do not see how your own arguments, which are (arguably) quite elaborate, frequently vague, often arbitrary, and comprehensively "meaning"-less" and unnecessarily convoluted, qualify as the philosophy you claim to despise. A rose by any other name... even Wittgenstein, a man you seem to most willing to admire, was a philosopher, not a scientist. And in any case, in his brilliance, he came to reject many of the first premises he established.

The interest level of the common individual in philosophy is totally irrelevant when it comes the the validity of philosophical concepts or premises. If the common man was not interested in social reformation or political revolution or religious repression, would you say that social reformation, political revolution, or religious repression is too abstract, too convoluted? No. I think you would say that the common man is not qualified enough, or educated enough, or interested enough.

"Reality is that which is determined rationally" and similar corollaries are abstract statements of philosophy. If you reject abstract statements, or philosophy, you are rejecting the notion that anything can be known at all (which you have, in suggesting "information" does not exist). And if you accept that conclusion, you have to reject the knowledge that "nothing can be known." The rejection of abstract language (eg "God") on material grounds, leads to the implosion of the philosophical framework you seem to be proposing.

Laying all that aside, I would like for you to lay out your own perspective in a way that is, in contrast to the philosophy you describe, not elaborate, but simple, and not vague, but specific, and not arbitrary, but consistent, and not meaningless, but meaningful. You specialize in poking holes in other theories, but I would like to see the theory without holes, one that can be comprehensive to all without being overcomplex to some, one that can be simple and specific and thoroughly consistent all at once. The common man, apparently, needs this more than it needs any other philosophy.

Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life;
And these are they which bear witness of me;
And ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. (John 5:39-40)