the archives

dusted off in read-only


Trying to understand a previous statement posted 21 Feb 2006, 20:02 by rycanada, Peralogue

I think in an interview, R. Scott Bakker said: Regarding God. It's not so much that God makes things like purpose and morality possible, rather it's that he possesses the same general structure of these things, a structure (which philosophers call 'intentional') I get the general drift of this, but I'm also not sure what it really means to be "intentional" in the sense philosophers use it. view post

posted 21 Feb 2006, 21:02 by unJon, Auditor

I think that if you ask 10 philosophers that question that you'll get 10 differenct answers. From the gesalt experience of my undergraduate major in philosophy I would say that the gist of it is: A person, P, intends a consequence, C, to his action, A, if P believes that C could happen if A, and P does A under his own violition. view post

posted 22 Feb 2006, 04:02 by rycanada, Peralogue

Oh, well, in that case I do basically understand the structure of "intentional" - I just don't understand how this is God's structure. view post

posted 22 Feb 2006, 05:02 by unJon, Auditor

I just realize that I probably did you a disservice with an "unintentional" bait and switch between intentional and volitional. Check out this somewhat illuminating (and somewhat confusing) website explaining intentionality as discussed by various philosophers and it does indeed mention the structure of God, though in a peculiarly Christian manner. [url=]Intentionality in Ancient Philosophy[/url:20qdsh1z] view post

Well, at least I'm narrowing down what I don't understand posted 22 Feb 2006, 15:02 by rycanada, Peralogue

OK, reading this article, now I don't understand how the property of being intentional (i.e. about something) applies to God the way it clearly applies to "good". view post

posted 22 Feb 2006, 18:02 by unJon, Auditor

I think it's a peculiarly Christian philosopher concept that can be traced to Augustine who merged Christian theology with Plato's ideas about Forms. The idea is that man is created in God's image. And part of that image is the ability to act intentionally (towards some goal or aim). Augustine ascribed 'intention' as one of the three parts of human 'mind' and the part that corresponds with the Holy Spirit. One later philosopher who relied on Augustine's ideas is Malebranche. If you are interested you can read about him [b:2n7dkohq][url=]here.[/url:2n7dkohq][/b:2n7dkohq] Let me know if this is helpful. view post

posted 24 Feb 2006, 18:02 by Dawnstorm, Candidate

The term [i:3mbsq4ne]intentional[/i:3mbsq4ne] is familiar to me mostly in the "phenomenological" sense (Husserl, and - especially- his reception in the soical sciences by Sch├╝tz). Considering that perspective, I would read the statement thus: (Simplified, and in simple terms:) Thinking is thinking [i:3mbsq4ne]about[/i:3mbsq4ne] something. To liberate the "aboutness" from determination through either the thinker or the "thingly world", you concentrate on the "intentional phenomenon". This is something that neither has to exist, nor has to be dependant on the thinker to be meaningful. This applies to thoughts about your shoes as well to thoughts about God. Now, if you think about your shoes, they are things that might have triggered a different "intentional object" in your thoughts (were you someone else, or had you thought about them later, or were your colorblind....). With God (as with terms of morality, etc.), there is no single obvious thing to trigger an "intentional object" for your cognition. All you have is the representations (images, icons, texts, practises...) of other People's "intentional objects". There is no empirical corrective; no [i:3mbsq4ne]obvious[/i:3mbsq4ne] boundary to what you can say about God, other than what others have said about "him". Does that make any sense? view post

posted 25 Feb 2006, 03:02 by rycanada, Peralogue

A little. Damn my excessively clear philosophy professors - the faculty at my university were obsessed with direct, clear argumentation, to the point where they were often willing to just denigrate and ignore most of the less easily decipherable stuff (can you believe I actually graduated top of my class as a philosophy major and I'm in this bind?) view post

posted 25 Feb 2006, 17:02 by Dawnstorm, Candidate

I never took any philosophy at all, and all I know has been assembled in a rather unsystematic manner. Took me years to arrive at the "phenomenological" understanding of the word "intentional" I have now, and that understanding is most likely incomplete, possibly flawed in places, and - who knows - perhaps it's off altogether. What little philosophy we had in school, though... Don't make me remember that. :oops: view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.