Superfluous differences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Response to post 19
Explain! So what are you saying (if anything) other then I’m right and you are wrong? Merely stateing your position is not an argument. You lack substance.
PS: I can join in with the ad hominum celebration but I am too logical and mature for such juvenile antics. Please, continue with your accusations (without substance). It only proves that I have taken the high ground and you wallow about in the low ground (swamps).
 
Even though you claim you find theological differences as superfluous, insinuate that they do nothing but cause foolish arguing, and that both you and God don’t care what people believe, you are trying to argue your own point of view regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? 🤷 Why?
 
Response to post 19
Explain! So what are you saying (if anything) other then I’m right and you are wrong? Merely stateing your position is not an argument. You lack substance.
PS: I can join in with the ad hominum celebration but I am too logical and mature for such juvenile antics. Please, continue with your accusations (without substance). It only proves that I have taken the high ground and you wallow about in the low ground (swamps).
No, I’ll leave you to your logic and maturity, thanks. If you’d ever like to have an actual discussion, feel free to descend back into the swamps. Jesus will always be here in the swamps with us to welcome you.
 
OK, Alberti has retired for the evening. I eagerly await his logical and impersonal refutations to my arguments!😃
 
Response to post 19
Explain! So what are you saying (if anything) other then I’m right and you are wrong? Merely stateing your position is not an argument. You lack substance.
PS: I can join in with the ad hominum celebration but I am too logical and mature for such juvenile antics. Please, continue with your accusations (without substance). It only proves that I have taken the high ground and you wallow about in the low ground (swamps).
One might think that by stating one is taking the “high ground” in such fashion actually precludes one from doing so. 🤷
 
Response to post 23
Are you incapable of a logical syllogism? OK, only rude ad hominums.(insults) Have fun talking to yourself!
 
God is Truth. God is all important. Therefore, Truth is all important.

It is true that some aspects of the truth do not have much impact on what we do, but that does not make them unimportant. Even some aspects of what is certainly known to be true don’t affect how I act. (For example, the fact that St. Constantine is canonized doesn’t much change what I do, as I don’t have nor feel the inclination to have a devotion to this particular saint.)

However, I think you’ll find that knowing the truth can make it easier to follow the Truth, and even those aspects which do not directly influence our actions can help raise our understanding of the truth and grow closer to it.

Knowledge that a little known saint is canonized informs me that this person has an example worth following, and in developing a devotion to this saint and in following his example, I could grow closer to him and through this closer to God. So the knowledge that St. Constantine is saint does not affect me at this moment, but should I develop a devotion to him, I would be enriched. Therefore the knowledge has a use whether I am using it or not.

Likewise for the more important truths, the unthinking Catholic who goes to Church on Sundays, walks down the line, and receives the host may do this whether or not he believes transubstantiation (though he should not if he does not). To the person who disbelieves or does not know about transubstantiation, communion may well be a sign of participation and union with fellow believers. And that’s good, so far as it goes.

But to the person who knows what transubstantiation is, and knows that it happens, he sees just what God is doing for us, that He is using His very Self to nourish us, that He loves us so much to sacrifice Himself for us and feed us on His very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

This is a much richer thing. The knowledge of this makes the sacrament of the Eucharist much more meaningful, and the more this is understood (complete understanding is not possible) the greater we experience God’s love during the exact same action of walking up the isle to receive. Focusing on what God is doing makes the magnitude more apparent.

And so the Truth, even if our physical outward actions aren’t immediately affected, can enlighten us, show us the meaning in every act and make God’s love more obvious to us, more apparent, easier to grasp, and easier to accept.

Again, different truths have different levels of importance, and different people will be affected by the intellectual knowledge of these truths in different ways and to different degrees. I, for example, approach the faith primarily intellectually, with all of the relationship and communion aspects flowing from the intellectual approach just because that’s how I am. I would almost, but quiet, use a bumper sticker that says “Religious, but not Spiritual” because I don’t experience spirituality in the “warm and fuzzy” way that many people do unless it is accessed intellectually (and even then it’s more of an intellectual sense of awe and wonder rather than a feeling of belonging or any such thing).

Your mileage may vary - different things may affect you to different degrees. But I would be extremely surprised if you could not trace your sense of God, your spirituality, at least in some degree to the truths that you do and do not accept.
 
Response to post 25
OK, refute my arguments. No one has even attempted to do so,so far.
PS:ad hominums (insults) do not count!
 
OK, Alberti,
So signifier and signified are the same thing? ummmmm ,so why are they seperated in every book about semiotics?
Your attempt at introducing straw men failed. I never mentioned “signs”!
I think you need to look at the post again. I did not say that the signifier and the signified were the same thing, I said that the sign is the two combined and that a sign cannot be separated into signifier and signified as if they were two separate entities. Neither a signifier nor a signified can exist alone! The two must be in reference to a sign!
 
Response to post 16
OK, all you got are ad hominums (insults)
Did you know that ad hominums are not only rude but logical fallacies?
For example,
  1. Manson is a liar.
    2.Manson said that 1+1=2
  2. Therefore 1+1 does not =2
    Obviously a non sequiter, and obviously an invalid argument.
    Ummmm, basic logic 101 here, attack the argument not the person.
This is not a response to my post.
Hmmmmm,so you disagree with my definition of signifier and signified?😃
No, I disagree with your understanding of what semiotics is.
 
Response to post 30
Perhaps if you graduated from university with a degree in philosophy,you would understand what I am talking about. Perhaps then we can get into a civilized debate without the ad hominums.
So you agree with my understanding of signified and signifier. However, you do not agree with my understanding of semiotics? Hmmmm, all I was concerned about (and the only thing that pertains to our discussion ) was if you agreed with my understanding of signified and signifier. Can we proceed without the ad hominums?
 
I think you guys are confusing (conflating) the signifier with the signified.
Actually, no. Are you familiar with Catholic sacramental theology? Given your statement, above, I’m thinking that the answer is ‘no’.

Would it be helpful to review the basics of the Catholic understanding of ‘sacrament’? I think that, until you recognize what we’re saying, it will appear to you that we’re getting the notion of ‘signs’ wrong… 😉
 
Response to post 25
OK, refute my arguments. No one has even attempted to do so,so far.
PS:ad hominums (insults) do not count!
Don’t worry, I’m not here to insult you. 😛

What arguments have you made? I saw you sharing your opinion that certain doctrines and dogmas are superfluous.

(FYI, you can hit the little “quote” button by a particular post if you would like to respond to it. It will automatically insert the text of the post you are responding to into your reply.)
 
Response to post 30
Perhaps if you graduated from university with a degree in philosophy,you would understand what I am talking about. Perhaps then we can get into a civilized debate without the ad hominums.
I understand about signs, signifiers, and signified without possessing a BA in Philosophy (for reference, I do possess a BS, MS, & PhD in Physics).

What ad hominems are you talking about? I have not posted anything that should be taken as such. I have already refuted your OP with my response in Post #2, you have yet to rationally debate the issue, preferring to say, “I don’t care” about fundamental theological differences.
So you agree with my understanding of signified and signifier. However, you do not agree with my understanding of semiotics? Hmmmm, all I was concerned about (and the only thing that pertains to our discussion ) was if you agreed with my understanding of signified and signifier. Can we proceed without the ad hominums?
It is not hard to recognize what a signifier and signified are, no one needs a BA in philosophy to understand them. To understand how to correctly use the terms, one might require more than a brief perusal of a book on the subject, possibly even a degree in philosophy.

Personally, I think introducing signs into the discussion at hand is quite silly. The distinction between the Body & Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and Bread & Wine is not as superficial as a difference between forms and concepts, something you seem to be under the impression.
 
Response to post 32
I never said that what my opponents were posting was Catholic teaching. I said that my opponents while claiming to be Catholics were confused as to what the church teaches.
 
Response to post 34
Simple question,am I confused as to the difference between signifier and signified? If I am,please explain why I am confused.
Actually, I am getting bored. What next? Criticising my grammer? (I’m using a tablet).Oh dear, maybe my big fat fingers made me spell something incorrectly?. Yes, I know grammer and spelling are different catagories. YAWN
 
Response to post 34
Simple question,am I confused as to the difference between signifier and signified? If I am,please explain why I am confused.
Actually, I am getting bored. What next? Criticising my grammer? (I’m using a tablet).Oh dear, maybe my big fat fingers made me spell something incorrectly?. Yes, I know grammer and spelling are different catagories. YAWN
I think you are using ad hominem on yourself here. Have I said anything about your grammar? Nope, so why bother inventing a straw man here?

My issue is that you keep using signifier and signified in contexts where it is either pointless or wrong. It is as if you just learned what they mean and feel the need to spout out the two definitions you just learned at every given chance (preferring the dyad interpretation, as opposed to the triad interpretation). More often than not, semiotics is not really necessary outside of semiotics and linguistics.
 
Once again, do you agree or disagree with my understanding of signifier and signified? And if you disagree tell me why,more then just ad hominums (insults,you don’t know what you are talking about because you only read beginner’s books.etc…)PLEASE!. Can we start a civilized debate?!!
 
I never said that what my opponents were posting was Catholic teaching. I said that my opponents while claiming to be Catholics were confused as to what the church teaches.
Actually, no – what you asked was whether they were confusing ‘signifier’ with ‘signified’, ostensibly in response to their reactions to your statement “If that wine is actually blood (to me) is superfluous. What is in one’s heart is what matters. Perhaps that wine is blood. For me personaly, I do not care.”

But, for the sake of the discussion, and since (it seems) you haven’t made this clear yet, would you please identify what Church teaching was provided that was ‘confused’; moreover, perhaps you might let us know what the proper teaching is?

(I would guess, given your statement that I copied, above, that you see the Eucharist purely as a sign, whose meaning exists within your heart, and which takes on the elements of ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ as signifiers. Close enough? If so, is this what you’re asserting Church teaching to be?)

Blessings,

G.
 
Once again, do you agree or disagree with my understanding of signifier and signified? And if you disagree tell me why,more then just ad hominums (insults,you don’t know what you are talking about because you only read beginner’s books.etc…)PLEASE!. Can we start a civilized debate?!!
I have already answered your questions in my previous post.

An ad hominem is not an insult, it is an argument made against you rather than against your argument. I have not made any arguments against you, only against your arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top