Page History

SCANNED PDF

What is the relation between (1) the purely formal conceptuality/terminology that I have held to be required if different religious and existential positions are to be critically interpreted and their claims to validity critically validated; and (2) a transcendental metaphysics such as I have also held to be both possible and necessary? Are they one and the same thing? Or are they related analogously.

I hesitate to say that they are one and the same because religion as well as other existential positions is one thing, metaphysics, something else. Thus, while religion concerns itself with the meaning of ultimate reality for us, metaphysics is concerned with the structure of ultimate reality in itself. Of course, the first concept necessarily implies the second, since to think and speak about the meaning of ultimate reality for us is to think and speak about the structure of ultimate reality in itself, even if symbolically rather than literally. But the converse implication does not hold: one may very well think and speak about the structure of ultimate reality in itself by abstracting from all thought and speech about the meaning of ultimate reality for us. It would seem to be the case, then, that while the purely formal conceptuality/terminology required for interpreting and validating religious and other existential positions necessarily implies a transcendental metaphysics, the two things cannot be one and the same. On the contrary, the first includes concepts/terms, such as "the meaning of ultimate reality for us," or "the implicit primal source of authority," or "the decisive representation of the meaning of ultimate reality," that go beyond, even as they surely imply, the proper concepts/terms of a transcendental metaphysics. 

But if the two things can hardly be one and the same, are they related analogously? I incline to think they are.

...