I'm more interested in the spiritual guts of his theory than the metaphysical justifications. — jjAmEs

I'm the opposite. Schopenhauer said that Fitche wrote convoluted nonsense. But I love those kinds of things! Do you know what parts of Fitche's works get really abstract?

Aristotle was wrong to say a segment is not infinitely divided. Parts are real. The finite merges with the infinite in objects probably by some non-euclidean extra dimension.

Am I the only one who finds it unintuitive that a line segment can be shrunk for all eternity and never disappear? Just asking

No. There is obviously a division among motion or it couldn't be motion at all

As an outline, sex starts with an evil intention and ends with a morally good completion of the act. So sex seems to be neutral morally. (Of course rape and stuff are different) If you enjoyed the cancellation, good. Sex can cause pain too though

If everything changes every infinitesimal of time then it's being does not remain the same. Think thesuas ship. An infinite process can lead up to something that doesn't change. Maybe that will be the end result of the universe

Actually Zeno's paradoxes prove that the "continuum" is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

It shows there is a paradox in that every object is both finite and infinite at the same time, almost in the same respect. This shouldn't prevent us from seeing motion and change as real. It just shows us it is weird. A tree can go from being a single organism to being toilet paper. The process is a continuum. The result is something discrete.

Did you read what I wrote? It's very clearly an infinite regress. The change between X and not-X is described as the state of Y. This requires something to explain the change between X and Y, call that state Z. This requires something to account for the change between X and Z, onward ad infinitum.

Change, "becoming," is incompatible with states of being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Zeno already proved nearly 3 thousands years ago that there is a continuum. But the end points or limits can be discrete. It's not regress, but progression through an infinity, which you do everytime you move, from one being to another

Are you saying there is no such thing as sexual crime? Could you clarify what you are trying to say?
Christians deal with the issue of sex in multiple ways. I can send you Bible quotes in a private message only if you want, but i'm not posting Bible quotes at this time due to forum restrictions. — christian2017

Of course there are sexual crimes. Some worse than others. I think every sexually active person has done a sexual sin before, but probably also morally upright sexual acts. It's such a confusing act. Some parts of good, some others must allow evil to creep in. But Christians usually say "find one person and stay with that one person forever, and tell everyone else they have to do the same". That's the worse idea ever. It goes (in their minds) from always being a sin outside marriage to be a blessed act in marriage. It's not correct. Marriage has little to do with sexual morality

google or bing:
thailand + buddhism + temple prostitution — christian2017

Sex. It inherently has a sinful side and a good side. It's completely paradoxical, and there appears to be no way to untangle them. Best to remind ourselves we are like the lions and the birds. The paradox of sex is like the paradox of liking butts. Butts are beautiful, but look what they do! However, take away the poop and the butt loses it's charm. The Christian way of dealing with this issue is absolutely absurd

I don't see any way to relativize this distinction further. — Nagase

I like how you phrased that. Great question

Here is an article if you would like on Buddhism in Thailand. — christian2017

Thanks

I do agree the modern christian church is trash though. — christian2017

I've seen a lot more hard core Christians freaking out over the virus than non-believers

I'm not going into a detailed conversation about that right now unless you want me too — christian2017

You may

Also Buddhism has holy books. — christian2017

They read and treat them very different than Western religions do however. Alan Watts mentioned a monastery in Asia that had religious texts on this spiralling thing and when you spin it you can consider yourself to have read them. (This reminds me of Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys going to a library on acid in 1967 and running his hands over one of Kant's book in order to absorb the knowledge. Off topic but interesting :)

Plato wrote that "we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything else anywhere, is one thing. It is invisible". I think he marveled at the variety of these Forms (which were really pictures in his mind's eye) but thought them united somehow in a meta-Form. He did not think this was God it appears. Personalities were separate. Whether you think truth is the Prime Mover, or Jesus, or an impersonal Form (even if you call it Brahma), you are making truth into something you want to have a relationship with. Even if all that exists is the world, the truth that all that exists is the world is true but that truth rests on nothing. I think this is key to dealing with logic and it's subdivisions

It's a placeholder for thinking-in-process. These my usages. Are there any others? Or another way, when I hear or read about being or nothing, my nonsense warning lights light up. — tim wood

Think of absolute space and time as understood in past centuries. Those are literal nothing.

"There are the indisputable facts - fossils and all - but these facts point to creationism as much as it points to evolution et al."
— TheMadFool

No they don't. They indicate evolution. Biological studies on how genes mutate go to proving it further. "Answers in Genesis" wants to base their beliefs on a general book for which we have not an original copy for any single particular book in it. These people think they can communicate with cave men, and would rather do that then try to work with the continual en-devours of men of science

Gregory you are mixing forum topics, so if i join in on this i'll be deliberately swapping forum topics. — christian2017

I was just responding to posts and seeing where it went. Back to the OP topic for a moment: ye I saw that website. What I want to know is what principles do theoretical physicists start with guide them as they look at the data. Why not just have date collectors? Anything else is interpretation of the data: aka, philosophy.

This thread is about religion AND science however. Gnostic Christian Bishop makes many great points. I think the vast majority of Christians (including Mormons ect.) in this country are fake as can be BECAUSE of their religion. If someone thinks they had a religious experience and are obsessed with sharing it with others, they clearly didn't have a real spiritual experience because a real one is personal. Duh! It's simply the most narcissistic group of religions ever created by animals (men). The world as we know it does not have its origin in the Abrahamic God. , Again, duh!! The Theravada school of Buddhism explicitly teaches that there is no supreme personal god. Them there are a much smarter group of people. Double boo to Billy Graham, William Craig, and the rest of the people who stared at their own souls all day

So the ancient texts are nothing but dead symbols. What's left but to do the "social game" (which includes doing philosophy, which I'm fond of) as we socially distance, and do more experiments in science!

Theoretical physicists would have to understand matter in itself in order to come up with truth apart from experiments. I claim such is impossible. If something is not solely confirmed by experiments, it's theoretical PHILOSoPHY

I don't need to be there to know that a man, Jesus, cannot raise himself after he successfully suicides himself to test a myth and fail to prove it real.

His less intelligent followers should consider the immorality of their beliefs but of course do not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Amen

Why do you say Wittgenstein was wrong? — TheMadFool

This forum has all kinds of meaningful philosophical discussions which Wittgentstein would call "word games" for the sole reason that he personally hadn't the patience to think them through

As you can see, there would be an infinite regress if we account for change, "becoming", with statements of "being", what the thing is. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not an infinite regress. It's just a gray canvas. Almost every bit of Aristotle is circular and a waste of time

What do you say nothing and being are? — tim wood

Being is that which we can sense with our being. That's pretty broad, but it covers several philosophical standpoints. Nothing is that which no being can sense

theoretical physics is not pure philosophy — christian2017

Can you give an example of a theoretician combination several datas and not having to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis about them is right? If it all has to be tested, then my point stands

Does it not seem to you that it can have neither substance nor accidents? Being, itself, would seem to be one place where in Heidegger's phrase, "the nothing noths." Or, if being is the possibility of being, then being isn't, until it is, but in that instant of becoming it becomes no longer being. — tim wood

Hegel said that nothingness sublates being into the flow of the world (becoming). The Parmenidian One is "thrown", to use Heidegger's word, by nothingness towards all our deaths, all along we realizing that this place is our vacation

Thanks for the responses.

As meaningless as what you claim ancient texts are, by the same token, so are the words spoken and written as of now, including these that I write and those that you wrote — TheMadFool

They mean something to me, and there is much more human communication between you and I on this forum than between you and Aristotle's texts. I just finished reading Phenomenology of Spirit for the third time. Every time I read it I get a different interpretation. I have no clue what the guy originally meant in that old German. This principle applies stronger and stronger as we go back into the past. Wittgenstein was wrong in saying there are no true philosophical problems, but he has a point about the "social game". Bullshit they know how to translate the Rosetta stone! Historians have the biggest imaginations of any group of scholars. In general I reject history and all it's subdivisions as unscientific when it goes back more than a few hundred years. You are born, open your eyes, and latter find yellowed paper in a library or musuem. Why think it has wisdom because it's yellow? Why think you can get on the same brain wave as the author?

Maybe 1 does not equal one because a nothing is identical, as nominalism says. So there is only one 1, one 2, ect. and math crumbles before philosophy. Wouldn't it result in there being only one number?

It certainly sounds like Hawking was wrong to say philosophy is dead. Boo to Wittgenstein too. There are genuine questions here

Being comes out of its opposite. So they are mutually opposed but one is the source. They don't technically relate

You are thinking about nothing in a mathematical sense. You're being far to Kantian. The stars are limited

A blank canvas of only one color is the foundation of patterns. Something comes from nothing. That's why we die says Heidegger. We were always at home until we existed and what was not is what it is

Boo! God clearly doesn't exist. Haven't you seen a Christmas tree? People say they didn't feel like a person till their teens. I felt like a full person with free will and reason at age 3. The only thing towards which this world doesnt exist Is Pure nothingness

Wait, you are writing the next Critique of Pure Reason and you don't even believe the world is real? Are you saying there is a greater reality in comparison to which this one we live in doesn t exist? Is this God or a Form?

Kant settled for the finite in his mind

A koan is meant to make you unmeasurable. I feel like everyone is turning from the East and moving to Greece lately on this forum :(

A consistent position of relativism is what I'm after, as I said above. I think 1 plus 1 equals anything or everything except 2. That's where Greg's at, reading Hegel

I get your point. Math and physical world seem separate with regard to the question of nominalism.



Russell wrote a lot of pages trying to prove one plus one equals 2. The final proof is not until Volume II, 1st edition, page 86. I like to get into those discussions and see what can be doubted. What if for an alien's brain, 2 plus 2 equals 100? I can see how that could work. Is our for of rationality necessary? Nominalism seems a stride in that direction

Numbers construed how? As fictional characters, or concrete quantities? — bongo fury

Aren't they only fictions? I am not doing what jgill says. I'm offering an alternative, not proving a point per se

There seems to be only two valid forms of relativism. 1) nothing is true except that nothing is true because that is true. I like that serpentine move, speaks of nothingness. 2) everything is true. Speaks of a Eleatic substance to me

Hume pointed out that we can't say where force comes from, hardly knowing what force is in itself. He says things hardly need to make materialistic sense on earth, let alone at its source. If a human mind could somehow squeeze out the thought that 4 equals 9 and 1+4+9+20=12, then Humes thought would be complete

He also thought heavy objects fall faster, not just stronger, than light ones

Aristotle thought the air returns forward to push the arrow along after it was flung from the bow. No idea if this is true

1) form and and matter, when believed to perceived in an object by an Aquinas or Aristotle, says something objective about the object. For a Kant, the form and matter are noumena

2) why do people get a warm fuzzy sense when they think things have resemblance, but not from difference. Thomists always think their spirituality is not only superior but the only logically valid one. I don't respect that

If reality has no common natures,.why should numbers share a nature necessarily?

Mathematics is inherently Platonic. All numbers share a nature