I'd suggest that the sheer instrumentality of the "new science" is a major culprit here. It leads to a sort of pride. It's a particularly pernicious pride in that it often masquerades as epistemic humility. Its epistemic bracketing is often an explicit turn towards the creature and the good of the creature without reference to the creator, as if the one could be cut off from the other. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," and exchanged a holistic view for a diabolical process that cuts apart and makes it so that "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions." — Count Timothy von Icarus
People and especially cultures cannot do a 180° reversal in a day, — Leontiskos
It's almost as if the rationalistic context must be abandoned for a time — Leontiskos
Science, with all its successes, cannot explain mental phenomena and how they could be efficacious in the world. It is not difficult to see that a model that includes the mind resolves the mentioned problems.I don't think that classical theology would ever say that God 'exists objectively'. Whatever exists objectively can be discovered scientifically. — Wayfarer
Could we agree that something that exists is either objective or subjective? If yes, then God must objectively exist; otherwise, He is only an idea in the minds of believers. Now, this thing that objectively exists, God (generally, something that objectively exists is called a substance), must have a set of abilities, for example, the ability to create; otherwise, there would be no creation. God also has to have the ability to experience, as well, since otherwise God would become blind to His own knowledge, so He cannot act based on His knowledge. Such a God is a single thing and therefore is a good candidate to be the creator. If there are three substances, of which each is God, then we are dealing with the Trinity. Each substance is either distinguishable from another substance or not. If they are distinguishable, then there must be something to help us distinguish one from another, so-called properties. The properties also required to tell how the whole functions as a united thing. If they are not distinguishable, by this I mean they have no properties, then having more than one substance does not grant any functionality that one substance doesn't have, so the Trinity is unnecessary. So, I have one question here. What are the properties of each substance?This is not what is meant by an essence in classical metaphysics. This would seem to lead to something like a commitment to a "bundle metaphysics" where things just are collections of properties (plus or minus some bare substratum or haeccity that properties attach to; i.e., "pin cushion metaphysics"). Such theories are reductionist, but they also tend to be nominalist, although I suppose they could also align with some sort of austere realism that reduces all things to a basic set of properties (e.g., ontic structural realism, reduction to a platonic mathematics). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Many ways. All of them are ad hoc workarounds. Compare the tortured "Socrates is-a-thing-taller-than-Plato" to Taller(Socrates, Plato).It has many ways of dealing with many placed predicates and relations. The ancients and medievals did not lack a notion of polyadic properties. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Aristotle’s logic dominated scholastic philosophy through the middle ages; indeed, as late as the eighteenth century, Kant maintained that Aristotle’s logic was perfect and in no need of revision. But the theory of the syllogism is far too limited to model anything but the most superficial aspects of mathematical reasoning. — Open Logic
...but it seems that Count Timothy von Icarus disagrees. — MoK
Logic as the work of the Devil? The retreat from rationality is the only response left for those who must accept the dogma of the Trinity despite it's incoherence.Wholly instrumental analytic reason is in a sense diabolical (in both its original and current sense). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yep. We might even go a step further and ask if the idea of essences is worth keeping.I think it is proper to ask for a concise definition of essence. — MoK
ask if the idea of essences is worth keeping — Banno
Essence as a choice? It's an improvement. What is, is not fixed eternally. But again, I'll go with essence being a philosophical invention, petty thoroughly undermined by Wittgenstein yet given a brief reprieve by Kripke. I'd be happy to consider alternatives - if they could be given clearly.Did Sartre's idea of essence appeal to you? — frank
I see no problem with the idea of essential qualities or attributes. — Janus
How do these differ from just plain properties - that is, we can identify the kettle form others if we specify that it is the one on the stove; but being on the stove is not, I suppose, a part of the essence of being that kettle....criteria for the identification of things — Janus
...criteria for the identification of things
— Janus
How do these differ from just plain properties - that is, we can identify the kettle form others if we specify that it is the one on the stove; but being on the stove is not, I suppose, a part of the essence of being that kettle. — Banno
Added: Not sure we should count Camus as an existentialist... — Banno
Talk of the properties had by some individual in every possible world is much clearer than… — Banno
Talk of the properties had by some individual in every possible world is much clearer than… — Banno
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.