Faith in ourselves again frames our inquiry into an excluded middle, between how we think ourselves should be, and/or how it really is, usually as perceived by others.
So that self appears reductive, where that appearance is more likely be reified existentially. That particular existence disregarded, on basis of a hidden intention , now that ‘Real’ ‘isms’ have ceased to be a solution.
The pack on a probability scale , held long enough , appear to counter- produce a false ideal.
Therefore , the reactive agnostic can’t help but reject an impositive view of himself, and in rare cases , assert his inclusion, as being an effective religious force , unto other faiths.
Agnostics and the religious are ontologically related as defined existentially , as between being and nothingness, existence and being.
The essence of this argument is all encompassing, and can never really be reversed , or changed.
The arguments against essentialism make no sense, in light of arguing against it metaphorically, since it has not been constructed with a view to be anything else then a tenet of faith. The myth itself , eclipses that of the -self-, as, as am independent construction, making ‘ignorance’ -of- IT, only a displacement , to annihilate the original presumed construction.
It was never never constructed because IT always had being
It can not become transcendent , because IT’s .eternal imminance. (All evils originate from that simple misunderstanding, the pure agnostic is beginning to see that illusion, in reality, but only metaphores and myths can actually begin to describe it, if at all.)
What’s foolish about it?
The below reference is merely a loose, but essentially related argument, to enhance the credibility of conceptual / existential links.©~¤
re: Wanda Torres Gregory’s’ Heidegger’s Path to Language’
To clarify the relationship between language and semantics: with Dasein characterized first by linguistic use, then by structural syntax, finally by synthetic application of both.
Wherein, syntax occupies the central position of a dynamic middle, however this arrangement is not ‘fixed’ in its traditional arrangement, but fluctuates.
Now arguing backwards wooly, since it has become not only trendish, but categorically necessary, in ligjt of ruffled feather, fuzzy and inferentially loosely connected ideas.
And I suppose, it is built in the way arguments can evolve at all, and not a matter of a wise or a foolish heart. Irs just information, whether it be fake, or real. Nothi wrong with explorong the possible or the potentially possible, or even feasible.
This is why certain -thinkers of the deep: Socrates, Nietzsche, Christ, ended up the way they did, that singularity is very daunting, and once entered. well you enter the realms of hell from which deliverance is only through adherence to the Self.