Is a renewed onto-theology possible after the death of onto-theology?

Is a renewed onto-theology possible after the death of onto-theology?

How does a traditionalist metaphysician overcome Derrida's critique of the transcendental signified?

I would respond but that image is too distracting

>still using those random postmodern terms that don't mean anything
thank fucking god jordan peterson is doing away with all these idiots

Does Derrida ever talk about revelation, i.e. information communicated directly to humans by God?

It represents a philosophy of pure immanence. Every time you try to do metaphysics, she bullies you and calls you a fag.

I don't think so. I did read a very good book comparing Derrida with ibn Arabi's apophatic theology and its endless deferral of the logos.

Who is this semen demon

>Derrida's critique of the transcendental signified
What is the main aspect of ^^^ that needs to be overcome?

Transcendental signified, what is the gist of Derridas critique?

I haven't read Derrida but from my understanding, the problem with the Transcendental signified is that to predicate God as "God", one is delimiting the Transcendental. However, "Transcendental" and "Transcendental signified" are both predicates themselves. In this way, one falls into linguistic regress, hence the endless deferral of the logos (God in this case). The logos is not discourse but what the discourse is aiming at.

Getting into classical theism really makes just about every criticism of Christianity miss the mark because they never took the time to read the arguments properly. This includes Derrida of course.

so explain some of them, or even list the names of the topics, what arguments, for what?

So there is no way to determine the accuracy of claims of 'the transcendental signified', so even though the logos is claimed as being 'something' 'otherly', 'in any way inhuman', there is no way to prove that so 'logos' is just like anything else but the argument of logotioners to prove their; deductions, results, meaning, perception, thoughts, understanding; what, absolutely correct? Correct as in in allign with the creators best wishes?(on average over infinite time?)

How is this any different from Hegel's critique of the thing-in-itself? I feel like philosophy is moving in circles.

>'in any way inhuman'
Is this implying, suggesting, rightly, wrongly, that humans do not, unprovably, but so, but do think and grasp 'whatever the transcendental actually is'?

'you cant know or prove that any thought or utterance or drawing or pointing to the idea of a square is 'the pointing correctly to the actual eternal existing idea of the transcendental', but it is possible we do think and deal in the transcendental its just what would it even mean to prove it, and who defines what the word transcendental even means and entails.

maybe I first wanted to ask, which is why I quoted; what percentage of the trancendental is inhuman? what percentage of it 'deals with humans'?

Transcendental, meaning only 'what God wants'? Only what God wants of humans? And then there is a big list, partial and incomplete, and potentially partially inaccurate?

ello gova

erm wat

God is a linguistic mindfuck.

ITT: philosophy in progress

>niggas don't know about muh elenchus and aporia and theoria

What is the logos supposed to be? What qualifies a person from accessing and writing it? How does the logos relate to God?

Being a man.