Cicero's Reponse

Please send some of the recreational cookies that you ate before you composed this message.   

Seems that A.S. was criticizing philosophical explanations of the so-called transcendental type - meaning that the resolution of a question/problem is not purely a matter of logic or mathematics and it lies beyond the scope both of sense experience and of the proper use of theory answerable to sense experience. I knew this, but I got this definition from the Oxford dictionary of Philosophy - a great little 408-page book that can make anybody seem way smarter than they were before they looked up the meaning of a word.

Distinguishing/separating what is transcendental relies on the idea that objects are what they are to us (the world is what it is) only because our minds are structured such that that these are the categories we impose upon (the complete manifold of) experience. It seems A.S. is saying that we should not regard this limitation as a characteristic that can be overcome once (simply because) it is understood.

Do you disagree with this proposition? In other words, does your petitio principii apply when you break the message down to this proposition - is it a fallacy that the human mind must impose the method/categories we employ to develop understanding? I suppose that a drive to investigate magic means that you are inclined to reject it. Perhaps A.S. is suggesting that you stay away from magic.

How can you be sure? Is it not a good idea for A.S. to work out an understanding that applies if there is no possible way get around establishing the categories that we employ? If nothing else, such an understanding would apply to the vast majority of humanity. 

If A.S. is correct, then everything you say in (B) can be accurate, but he might respond: “yes, but so what? - suck it up and accept this fundamental human limitation.

But A.S. was a strong believer in a Christian god, so he must not disagree with the points you are making. I get the sense that you and A.S. are very close in your thinking, not far apart.

Possibly the main point of (A) was to bring recognition to where the concept/category of faith applies versus the existence of any truth/proof that can be exposed by philosophical methods - where a line should be drawn between philosophy and religion/faith. In other words, he is not recommending that a firm limitation be placed on where the human mind wanders as you seem to be interpreting, but rather that humans are limited to relying on faith (versus philosophy or science or anything else) whether we like it or not.

It is a common understanding that philosophical skepticism originated as an argument against religious doctrine, but the opposite is true - it originated as a tool to argue against automatically accepting science over religion.