doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
So far, I find Sunstone's responses to Doppelgänger's insightful questions to reveal a deep bitterness and resentment. Why is he evading that all-important question #10? What is he hiding?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
doppelgänger;860969 said:So far, I find Sunstone's responses to Doppelgänger's insightful questions to reveal a deep bitterness and resentment. Why is he evading that all-important question #10? What is he hiding?
I wish that we could have a whole thread discussing the underwear metaphor.
I wish that we could have a whole thread discussing the underwear metaphor.
doppelgänger;860977 said:Why do people wear underwear? Is it a buffer between our true selves and the masks we wear in social reality? Is the function of underwear to make sure than our true self doesn't seep through the masks that protect us?
When you say that, do you speak from the standpoint of a man in his boxers, or of a man in his wife's thong?
Do people tend to think of their underwear as their "private self" -- a self they show only to certain people they are close to?
doppelgänger;861033 said:Is a person's epistemology the "underwear" for their faith?
A person's epistemology would usually be closer to them -- and more revealing -- than their faith, don't you think?
doppelgänger;861090 said:Perhaps underwear is that space that connects epistemology with belief. It conceals the epistemology that lies behind belief, even from yourself! What say you?
However, that tragic accident seems to have blinded you to at least one needed clarification here: If we speak of underwear as the space that connects epistemology with belief, we must be careful to assert that "epistemology" refers to one's actual, living epistemology, and not to one's represented or merely conceived of epistemology. The former is the thing commented on, the thing mapped, the terrain of epistemology. The latter is the commentary, the map of epistemology -- anything we in our wisdom say about our epistemologies.
Surely, we must distinquish between an epistemology and a representation of an epistemology -- in much the same way we can distinquish between a barn and a representation of a barn.