Because they were not thought of as different states of the same thing — Fooloso4

Roger!

An interesting take on the issue. The logos = lumen naturale (of flesh, flawed) OR lumen fidei/lumen gratiae (divine, perfect). These two modes of knowing have been at odds with each other since time immemorial ( :smile: ). In a sense ... bereshit ... quod est bereshit?

Si, there are many fine points we have to work out. It all has to hang together somehow. As an eternal novice in philosophy, I'm not in a position to add much to the discussion as to truths, but speculate I/we can. Too, it seems people have given up on monism except for Gnomon and his Enformationism. I myself subscribe, half-heartedly, to duotheism.

I suppose people have abandoned the find-the-arche project precisely because, as Paine and you pointed out, it's beyond our reach, shelved for the time being, case to be reopened as when we develop new capabilities or insights. My question though was about something else entirely - what is the point to saying air is the arche when it's just water in a different form/state?

As I see it, the Socratic philosophers accept the human condition. There are no Buddhas who transcend it. — Fooloso4

I wouldn't know. Like Paine and you said, we need to know our limitations.

As for the arche, it seems beyond our event horizon.

Spoken like one who read the following.

Whether world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — The Buddha

You know already of course that physics, the be-all-and-end-all of science, can be reduced to mathematics; mathematics is pure thought. Hallelujah! :cool:

Materialism reduced ... to immaterialism.

You don't wrestle with anything I have said but comment upon it like observing cows while riding a train. — Paine

We're all different mon ami. I hope you understand.

I do not see my comment in your reply. — Paine

:chin:

I am not at all sure that there is a life beyond this one, but I'm certain that I came into this life with some memory of previous lives, ill-defined but at times vivid. So I have the tentative view that life extends beyond the bounds of an individual birth and death and so am alive to the possibility that heaven and hell are more than myth. So with that in the background, something like Pascal's wager assumes a greater urgency. I frequently contemplate the gloomy possibility that at the point of death, you will realise that your life has been misdirected, at the precise moment when you know you have no more chances to do anything about it.

What is Christian faith supposed to be about, in philosophical terms? I would put it like this: it is about realising one's identity as a being directly related to the intelligence that underlies the Cosmos, a direct familial relationship, not as abstract philosophical idea. (This is the gist of Alan Watt's book The Supreme Identity).

The name 'Jupiter' was derived from the Sansrit 'dyaus-pitar' meaning 'Sky Father'. There are versions of that name all through ancient culture. The name sounds like 'Jehovah' even though it is etymologically unrelated. But the point is, for a great many people, believers and unbelievers alike, Jehovah is conceived as a 'sky-father'. But underneath or concealed by the popular image, there's another level of meaning although it's very difficult to convey. The name 'Jehovah' was derived from the Hebrew yahweh, itself a derived from the tetragrammaton, a sequence of consonants that was literally un-sayable. In ceremonial religion, the name of God was invoked using other terms, but the 'sacred name' was unsayable because it was unthinkable, it was over the horizon of being, so to speak. By uttering the name casually, one profaned it, by bringing it into the profane world.

As a consequence of these complexities, many of the arguments about 'theism' are based on very confused accounts of what really is at issue. (David Bentley Hart's book The Experience of God addresses this confusion.) — Wayfarer

:up: :100: :clap:

Bur what is the word?

Gracias for the history lesson, assuming it's accurate. It's a classic case of religious vagueness/obfuscation - the meaning is heavily dependent on the reader's own interpretation. Hermeneutics hence, oui? The Greeks on the other hand, A⁺ for clarity and probably an F for correctness.

Furthermore, the logos gives me the impression of immateriality which adds one more hurdle to the problem of identifying an arche for the world.

Danke for reminding me of limitations. It's apropos to do so. We're in a dark place, oui?

You didn't. None of your logic followed. — Darkneos

I intelligo.

That's the insanity of trying to prove it, on top of it being unprovable of course. — Darkneos

I thought I proved ... something. I quite like me proofs. :smile:

Classified.

If you look at it as sarcastic it's wit, but that was unironically agreeable to me. — introbert

:up: Is it not the answer you're looking for?

Try ChatGPT on Vogel's paradox! — javi2541997

Gracias for the suggestion. Will consider.

"it" as in color code?

So,

Blue:self:Good
Red:enemy:Bad
Green:world:indifferent — Moliere

:up: Brevity, the soul of wit!

I tried googling Vogel's paradox. Null result. :chin:

Il est facile de voir que ... we can't.

Exist from ex meaning out and sistere which is to stand. In essence, to exist is to stand outside (of one's mind).

Il est facile de voir que ... I don't exist!

Si, the devil is in the details.

Only that the meaning of 'physus' was interpreted very differently in ancient philosophy, but I don't have anything further to contribute along those lines, so don't worry about it. — Wayfarer

10-4!

But are they? The modern idea of what constitutes 'the physical' is vastly different to the ideas of the ancients. The 'four elements' are a universal in ancient cultures, found just as much in Indian as in Greek philosophy (and I'd wager Persian, Chinese and Egyptian, although I don't know. Buddhists added 'space'. )

I think, lurking behind the search for the origin of being, there are states of realisation wherein the sage or seer attains direct insight into the 'principle of unity', which then he (it's usually 'he') tries to articulate in language, with various degrees of success. But in it, 'seeing' and 'being' are united in some fundamental way, which is beyond the comprehension of the hoi polloi (that's us). Our modern conception of knowledge embodies certain assumptions which likewise constitute a certain 'stance' or 'way of being', which, it can be argued, estranges us from the possibility of realisation of those unitive states of being which are preserved in those texts from the 'axial age'. — Wayfarer

I sympathize with your views - I read you as someone with a highly-developed spiritual side. Myself, I'm drawn to it, very mothishly, and I'm afraid I'm KIA, a long time ago. Sic vita est.

Back to topic now ... I'm a bit confused as to why you would question the physicality of the 4 Greek elements? It seems so obvious. Anyway, as Daniel Dennett of whom you don't have a high opinion says "obvious", "self-evident" are red-flag words of sophistry.

You've lost me again. — 180 Proof

:up: Apologies,

A broken link perhaps.

אֶהְיֶה‎ (’Ehyeh). — 180 Proof

Amen! :pray:

Schopenhauer's The Will?

Argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad misericordiam, and their like.

I intelligo ... The excerpt you provided is strong evidence of real philosophers doing real philosophy and I see now what you meant when you called me out for trivializing deep ideas. Mea culpa!

The logos is an aspect of find-an-arche mindset, but notice fire, water, earth, air are physical contrariwise.

Spinoza was a Jew, not a Christian. More to the point: an 'anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, supernatural and teleological deity' like the God of Abraham didn't make any sense to him by his late teens during rabbinical studies, and vocalizing this 'theistic skepticism' eventually got Spinoza excommunicated (cherem) from the very insular, observant Sephardic community (ghetto) of Amsterdam. Reason – freethought – "motivated" Spinoza. :fire:
nowReplyOptions — 180 Proof

I see. :up:

No. — 180 Proof

I was referring to something along the lines of Pascal's wager.

Well, you can identify the substratum as primary depending on what you consider as primary quality or the "beginning" of everything. What I mean is that is up to you. For example, I would choose Thales's water arche because without this substratum is impossible to survive. — javi2541997

Read me reply to Wayfarer (vide supra)

First off, apologies if you feel I'm trivializing a profound idea. It's unintended. I only read the Wiki entry on the topic and it's obvious that the Greeks were tryin' ta reduce everything to a one from which everything arises (monism). The problem, as described in the OP, is that the four Greek elements (fire, water, air, earth) are equivalent to each other (being only different states, transmutable via heating/cooling) and there's no logic to isolating one as the arche. That Heraclitus thought the arche is fire, Anaximenes air, Thales water, is the symptom that confirms my diagnosis, oui?

P. S. I really appreciate your constructive criticism. I'm an amateur philosopher and it seems making silly mistakes is part and parcel of being one. Mes amie, bear with me. Danke for your patience and generous assistance.

Solipsism can be about metaphysics. If one is the only person with a false/irrational belief, then one has to transcend "go beyond" the physical reality of the socius. Boom metaphysics. Your belief will never be true, therefore not epistemology, unless you change other minds. Then it is not metaphysics but epistem. — introbert

I don't think metaphysics is transcendence of the physical. It isn't confined to the physical though. Also I did argue from an epistemo-ontological view (re Idealism).

Apparently, whatever G_d says ... — 180 Proof

Any guesses as to what the first word was that issued forth from God's lips?

No, bereshit, there was a/the word per John. What, in your opinion, is that word? A word in the sense of a word in a language or something else?

:up: Allahu Akbar! El Rachum!

God means different things to different people. Do you have any idea about the motivation for Spinoza abandoning the Christian Jewish idea of God?

:smile:

I like to dance, but be warned, it might look like a seizure!


I'm just lookin' for a good reason to identify one substratum as primary among many when they're all interchangeable.

Such as ... — 180 Proof

Is that a rhetorical question?

The arguments I offered rely on either principles (novacula Occami) or definitions (3 marks of existence & epistemically-limited ontology). You may indeed question their legitimacy.

What I find intriguing is that as @Banno so insightfully inquired as to who the proof is meant for, a person X,

attempting to prove solipsism implies

1. X exists (as the target of the proof) [re cogito ergo sum]. Proof serves the same function as thought/doubt.

And

X succeeding to prove solipsism implies

2. Others don't exist.

Is Arche more akin to "first causes" or axioms or postulates from which first causes might emanate? — jgill

All 3: first substratum, first cause, first axiom

Il est facile de voir que ... someone, I don't know who exactly, has made a glaring error.