What distinctions aren't supportable?The basis presented for it seems to be a biblical passage or two then supported by some Aristotelian philosophy then in vogue, which draws upon distinctions not really supportable. — Hanover
Excellent exposition. I would add that this view of substance is inescapable for Aristotelians and even Cartesians, however substance can also be seen, as per the Schopenhaurian understanding of it, as the inner meaning of things - that is their substance, as opposed to their appearance. So in this Kantian/Schopenhaurian framework, what is substantial is defined as opposed to what merely appears. The Will is substance (or conatus as Spinoza calls it) - the phenomenal world is appearance.I think you still misunderstand the nature of substance. If a person is composed of two substances, then the person is two individual objects. To say that one thing is two substances would really be contradictory because substance is what validates the existence of the thing, so this would be like saying one thing has two existences. So substance dualism says that the human person is composed of two distinct things, body and soul, and this is why the soul can persist as a thing even without the body. It is usually argued that Aristotle's system is not consistent with substance dualism.
You're really just turning things around, saying that there is one thing (person) with two substances mind and body. This allows you to say that the one thing, person, has two properties, body and mind. The proper understanding of substance dualism would be more like two things, body and soul, each with properties. Each of these would be an individual substance.
If you check Aristotle's "Categories" Ch. 5, "Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse." In no way can primary substance be a property, this is what is explicitly excluded from the definition. "Substance" refers to the individual thing itself, not a property of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight.I'd think bias would count against the witness, offering a motive to fabricate. — Hanover
In arguing against that belief, not a single believer I've read has put himself imaginatively in the place of the believers and come ready to listen. — T Clark
No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weigh — Agustino
To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward. — Benkei
There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation. — Benkei
On the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy. — jamalrob
But if we remove "faith" from this discussion, there is nothing left to discuss. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course, a reasonable person would know that reasoning is not "arguing against." You're playing a game, that's not reason. — T Clark
But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. — T Clark
Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. — T Clark
Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).
The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.
The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.
The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.
'Just' as in the massacre at Acre? — Inter Alia
Delusional people have risked their lives in order to maintain their delusions. They are even willing experience ridicule because the risk of losing the delusion is greater (be ridiculed or lose one's eternal status in heaven?).No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight. — Agustino
here's a list of wonderful things that wouldn't exist but for the church: — Benkei
I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.
It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it. — Inter Alia
Exactly. A good point to stop talking then and move on. — Benkei
The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover
Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. — T Clark
Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist. — Benkei
But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher. — T Clark
I believe it's actually a very relevant question. What you mean by useful is very important. Many things are not useful in the sense that they don't have immediately observable results, but without them, everything falls apart.Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration. — Benkei
Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation...
Last one is from here.Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"
Of course it now remains for you to show that they were delusional. — Agustino
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.