First things first. You clearly have not thought through the meaning of the words "material" and "things." On using those term uncritically, your argument fails. Now lets move on. ("Material" and "things" are abstract terms applied to abstractions.) — tim wood
Think. e.g., about what a chair is. — tim wood
And this presupposes a first material thing without defining "first." And I'll note right now that my objections would be absurd and ridiculous in most arguments, but are substantial here. — tim wood
And the final cause, intention. I agree immaterial, but a thing-as-idea; i.e., an idea. Your reification of this, if that's what you're doing, is slipshod manipulation of an ancient word thorough multiple filters. But at the same time your usage may be revealing. — tim wood
Question: do you hold the Pythagorean theorem to be an immaterial existing thing not a mental construct? — tim wood
But we need a starting place. Let it be with your first premise and the words therein in question, "material" and "thing" and "material thing." These are all concepts based in practical knowledge. That is, descriptive in functional terms. As a practical matter, chairs are real, existing, material things. And that just is that all of these terms are ideas! Now, is that your understanding of God, an understanding of God as God? That is, as a functionality that you attribute to a Him? In short, an idea? — tim wood
These considerations and more are reasons that some - many - most old ideas are suitable for museum cases only. Relegated to the mothballed fleet of curiosities that modernity has ruled will never again - if they ever did - stand in the line of battle where knowledge is won. On your understandings, you cannot even speak intelligibly on these matters. You reject the only possible grounds, yet claim grounds that cannot be. You wave some words around that you cannot use correctly, announce "proved," and think you've done something. — tim wood
And indeed we must - agreed. But this not a warrant to make nonsense of science. And it is you who claim independent real immaterial existence. Throw out the understandings that condition our overall understanding of the world, and you can claim to walk through walls. You can claim anything you like, and adduce "arguments" that will prove every claim. But unless you meet the criteria of reason, they will all be unreasonable nonsense. — tim wood
You've said it all here with this. Unless you're prepared to argue that concepts are non-mental immaterial independently existing things I see no need to continue.I have a very good understanding of the concept of matter. It is an Aristotelian concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have a very good understanding of the concept of matter. It is an Aristotelian concept.
— Metaphysician Undercover
You've said it all here with this. Unless you're prepared to argue that concepts are non-mental immaterial independently existing things I see no need to continue. — tim wood
"Btw, "very compelling reasons" such as?"
— 180 Proof
We could start with the cosmological argument ... — Metaphysician Undercover
... the very existence of religion is public evidence for the efficacy of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
But you, being offended by my claim ... — Metaphysician Undercover
Unless you're prepared to argue that concepts are non-mental immaterial independently existing things I see no need to continue. — tim wood
(a) At best the argument is unsound. — 180 Proof
Any religions? ergo any g/Gs? That's as vapid as saying "the very existence of 'Star Wars conventions, websites, merchandise, books, films & fan clubs' is public evidence for the efficacy of ... 'The Force'". C'mon, MU, you can do better than that. — 180 Proof
Stop projecting. Criticism of your fallacious arguments and incoherent statements is not a sign of "being offended" by them. Get over yourself; I'm not offended by your idle woo, MU, sometimes it even amuses me. — 180 Proof
I know there are immaterial things within my mind because I have contact with them, and apprehend them with my mind. I do not however, have direct contact with immaterial things independent from my mind. But I apprehend all sorts of things in my environment, words, writing, and other artificial things, which indicate to me that there are immaterial things which are independent from my own mind, in the minds of others.... the conclusion that there are immaterial things independent of my human mind is very sound. Aquinas' arguments state that based on the evidence of existing material things, we can conclude that there are immaterial things independent of all human minds.... We see in our environment, the effects of immaterial things, and based on our own experience with immaterial things within our own minds, we conclude that there are immaterial things independent of our minds. On what principles would you base an argument to deny this? — Metaphysician Undercover
Lack of evidence, special pleading, lack of definition, equivocation, failure in defining terms, begging the question - really, there is more wrong than I have words to name. In some respects I'm like the horse that refuses to advance over a rickety bridge. — tim wood
Kindly tell us what immaterial thing is in your mind that is not some sort of idea or mental construct, or in short a product of your mind (being mind, presumably thinking, whether voluntary or involuntary), but that is instead an independently existing thing. And in the mind of others that you deduce from your apprehensions of your environment. — tim wood
I think of Aristotle as a thinker who, finding himself in a world with few or no good accounts of it, tried to find and provide those accounts, his tools comprising mainly logic and reason as he understood them. If he could craft in words a good account, that would be his account of that part or aspect of the world. And so heavy objects fall faster than light objects, smoke "falls" upwards, & etc. You, near as I can tell, uncritically misuse both the force and substance of those arguments to draw conclusions that only stand within the framework of the thinking that produces them, and not elsewhere. — tim wood
Christian thinkers didn't fall into that particular trap. They themselves established their own form of the Kantian divide between faith and reason 1500 years before him. It's all faith, and if within the faith some reason can be employed, all the better. And faith can be a very good thing. But at the boundaries, where the iron meets the rest of the world, all is rust and corruption at the hands of people who don't know any better, and as well those who do. And mainly what they do is claim that matters of faith are matters of fact. I do not imagine the phenomena of these corruptions unique to Christianity. — tim wood
But his was preeminently the effort to explain nature, to make it conform to reason by inventing the reason, but in any case not to "put nature to the question." — tim wood
MU, if you and I are going to continue it is clear to me we are going to have to start at the very beginning.You agreed that there are immaterial things in human minds, called ideas. — Metaphysician Undercover
And this. You have every reason. You just make claim upon claim upon claim.I have no reason to believe that there are not immaterial things independent of all human minds. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have no reason to believe that there are not immaterial things independent of all human minds. According to theologians, the existence of natural material things is evidence of immaterial things independent of all human minds.
Why do you see a problem with this? It is very clear that we do not have direct mental access to immaterial things which are independent of our own minds, yet it is very true that there are such things. We logically deduce that there are immaterial things independent of our own minds, through observing the existence of material objects. It is this logical process which leads us to the existence of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
MU, if you and I are going to continue it is clear to me we are going to have to start at the very beginning.
For example, I am content to acknowledge there such things as chairs, and this simply as a practical matter. And that the chairs are material things. At the same time I am aware that this language of "chairs" and "material" is equivocal and ambiguous - but not in the practical context of chairs. This language in its context is absolutely meaningful.
I also know that there is love, justice, three, and all abstract ideas. These are all manifestly somethings. Equally manifestly, they are not material. It seems accurate to call them ideas/mental constructs, In the sense of no mind, no idea/mental construct, nor can you ever sit on one. I call them ideas, and for as long as we can keep in mind that our use of the word "thing" has two least two very different referents and thereby avoid confusion, "thing" is a convenient word to use. And this I made clear several post ago — tim wood
But now you present it as an immaterial thing in minds that we call ideas. Perhaps you mean the same thing I mean, but in inverting the order you make me very suspicious. — tim wood
An idea/mental construct is a product of thinking (thinking broadly defined) that is immaterial, and that for convenience we can call it a thing, and that in doing so do not at all imply that ideas are in any way material. Agreed? — tim wood
And this. You have every reason. — tim wood
"Very true," "logically deduce," "logical process." You are the one making these claims. I merely trying to get you to put your money where your mouth is. So far you have not. — tim wood
Exhibit these demonstrations for us; let us see how very true they are, how they are logically deduced, the result of logical process. If you cannot or will not - and of course you cannot - then you're just a snake-oil man. a thief of language and ideas, a sophist and not a very good one, a troll, and the only correct thing to do is to challenge you as a seller of nonsense. — tim wood
An idea/mental construct is a product of thinking (thinking broadly defined) that is immaterial, and that for convenience we can call it a thing, and that in doing so do not at all imply that ideas are in any way material. Agreed?
— tim wood
I agree with this. Now, do you agree that there are material things which are the product of thinking, just like there are immaterial things which are the product of thinking? We see these engineered, artificial things all over the earth. — Metaphysician Undercover
You're so fucking full of shit that it frustrates me Woody. I produced the argument at least twice. Each time, you said something like "that argument doesn't cut it", and "I don't buy it". After this, you said "please exhibit your argument, the one you repeatedly refer to". So I re-presented the argument again, and you said "thank you for re-presenting". Now you're right back to "Exhibit these demonstrations for us". Sometime I feel like I'm "Tied to the whippin' post, tied to the whippin' post." — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you recognize that the idea of "the chair" exists in the mind of the carpenter before the carpenter builds the material chair? Therefore the material existence of the chair is dependent on the immaterial "chair" in the carpenter's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Thinking by itself produces nothing material. — tim wood
But no one has ever been able to produce that chair. — tim wood
You want your notions to be non-mentally-constructed, non-material, independently existing real "things." Then make the kind of demonstration that reveals them. That's part of the program of "putting to the question": a compelling to meet a standard; the standard, one hopes, crafted so that with respect to the thing sought, it becomes a sine qua non. — tim wood
But this is wrong. With will power we move our bodies and this produces material things. So thinking clearly has a material effect. Thinking produces material things. The evidence for this is all around us in the form of artifacts and engineered things. — Metaphysician Undercover
there are immaterial things independent of my mind, such as the ideas in your mind. How can you not agree with me on this? — Metaphysician Undercover
Chairs are produced by human beings, and the idea, of what will exist, precedes the material existence of the chair. Do you agree with me? — Metaphysician Undercover
In a nutshell, right here. Did you not see and read the "by itself"? What am I to make of this misreading? If nothing else, and as charitably as possible, it's suggestive of a very unrigorous even uncritical and undifferentiated understanding of what a cause is. — tim wood
Perhaps you deny the point. Well, then, kindly make clear how any thinking produces any material thing. — tim wood
I do agree. but you have added the qualification, "such as the ideas in your mind." Until now, your claim as I have read it, is that there are independently existing non-material things that are not ideas/mental constructs. — tim wood
With respect to particular chairs, that are the result of the process you describe, yes. It seems to me debatable without any conclusion how the first chair, or ideas or notions of chairs, came about. But maybe that's not to the point. Yes, the blueprint for this chair preexists, and the general concept of chair (by now) preexists, any recently made or thing used as a chair. — tim wood
Twist and twist and twist and rewrite and misread - or don't read at all - and claim and do everything except face the matter square on. Nothing about my point was about my mind or your mind or anyone else's mind. It was about your claim that there exist independent non-material "things" that are not ideas/mental constructs - nothing to do with mind at all. Nor were we talking about causes. Yours is retro-reading into an argument something that was never there, and making chaos of it. And it is deeply disgusting. At the simplest, it mean that your words are not trustworthy,and that you are intellectually dishonest.You agree that there are immaterial things independent of your mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
and you simply ignore the question and keep on going.kindly make clear how any thinking produces any material thing. — tim wood
That's right, to refer to anything "by itself" is an irrelevancy. The words might just as well not even be English. What absolute dishonest nonsense, MU. A disgrace.The "by itself" is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
Nothing about my point was about my mind or your mind or anyone else's mind. It was about your claim that there exist independent non-material "things" that are not ideas/mental constructs - nothing to do with mind at all. — tim wood
Nor were we talking about causes. — tim wood
I ask you to kindly make clear how any thinking produces any material thing. -and you simply ignore the question and keep on going. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.