How is that related to what I said? — Tate

Then I did not understand what you said or why.

I think you're wedded to the idea that there is one “Christian" metaphysics (unless I'm misunderstanding you.)

Early Christians lived in the so-called "age of essence.". Think Plato. Christians just absorbed the science of the day. They didn't really bring any new innovations to it.

That era gave way to the "age of mechanism.". Aquinas was in on that as he inducted Aristotle into Christian thought.

Mechanistic metaphysics died when Newton introduced the idea of gravity, and again, Christianity went along for the ride.

With all due honor and respect to Hegel, I think sometimes he was trying to do something that doesn't really fit the facts.

I think you're wedded to the idea that there is one “Christian" metaphysics (unless I'm misunderstanding you.) — Tate

I think you are.

That era gave way to the "age of mechanism.". Aquinas was in on that as he inducted Aristotle into Christian thought. — Tate

I never heard of St Thomas being referred to as a mechanist. Will you explain that?

With all due honor and respect to Hegel, I think sometimes he was trying to do something that doesn't really fit the facts. — Tate

Hegel wrote a History of Philosophy. One can dispute his claims, but he knows the history of philosophy.

Science claims only physical particles are real. Christianity claims the spirit is real. Thus science is the outer and Christianity is the inner. A dialectical relation. — Jackson

Certainly traditional Christianity is dualistic, but at some level most every belief system is. That is, everyone acknowledges we experience things and most acknowledge there are things. The debate typically centers upon how we explain the experience versus the object.

My point here is that there is nothing particularly Christian and contrary to science or physicalism about claiming there is a phenomenal state apart from the object.

My understanding of the high regard for subjectivism among Christians (as in Kierkegaard's famous line "subjectivity is truth") relates to the idea that truth is found in the experience of living life, of obtaining meaning and understanding by having the experience.

Saying you need Christianity (or religion or God generally) to address inner states doesn’t give science its due.

Your arrogance inhibits your capacity to learn. You're not a tenth the philosopher 180 Proof has proved himself to be.
— ZzzoneiroCosm

get lost. sick of you. — Jackson

:sweat:

The debate typically centers upon how we explain the experience versus the object. — Hanover

Yes. I saying experience is objective.

Yes. I saying experience is objective. — Jackson

Then what is subjective?

Then what is subjective? — Hanover

That is the topic of the thread. I am saying the subject--object dichotomy is false. I gave reasons why.

That we have experience can be define as the subjective, but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective. — Jackson

Yes. I saying experience is objective. — Jackson

That is the topic of the thread. I am saying the subject--object dichotomy is false. I gave reasons why. — Jackson

I don't see how these 3 quotes from you are consistent.

I don't see how these 3 quotes from you are consistent. — Hanover

What is inconsistent?

Could anthropocentrism (the human "perspective") itself be subjectivism? We are, after all, narrating the story of the universe from a human point of view. Would an alien from another world, from another universe, understand us?

Anthropocentrism.

Anthropocentrism — 180 Proof

:snicker: Corrected!