Therefore it is logically impossible that an object, and its parts coexist, at the same time, as objects. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is as far from an issue of logic as it comes. It is a matter of whether one can conceive of a unity of forms which in themselves contain forms. The answer is obviously yes. We have waves within an ocean, mountains arising from the beach, a sky arising from the mountains, etc. It is all a unity as is our body yet we can still perceive forms within these forms. — Rich
waves will always be the property of the ocean and not objects themselves — Metaphysician Undercover
You predicate properties of the waves. If you insist that your object (logical subject) is both the ocean and the waves, the you have contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
Only because that is the way you view it. I see them all as objects as real forms. — Rich
No, just a different way of viewing things. A good example is this: — Rich
things that exist on one level, do not exist on another. — Wayfarer
Because I view it logically, and you view it illogically? — Metaphysician Undercover
It's either a duck or a rabbit. — Metaphysician Undercover
We could say that on one level it's a duck, and on another level it's a rabbit, but we cannot say that on the same level it is a rabbit and a duck, because that is to make one object into two objects, and that's contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your logic has become an obstruction that limits you. I don't have such an obstruction. I'm only interested in understanding by whatever means available. — Rich
There's a reason why we make rules of logic, and adhere to them. That's so we don't get confused by simple issues, as you have. — Metaphysician Undercover
I find it extremely doubtful that throwing away the fundamental rules of logic because they don't support what you happen to believe, is conducive to understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
If we give to "existence" its etymological meaning, then what "exists" is "what" arises or what is "created". Whereas "reality" is a much more general concepts, for example even "dreams" are a "reality", in some sense. The "Absolute" of many philosophies instead simply "is", since it does not "arise". The same in some sense can be said to "truths" IMO, like mathematical ones (albeit there is also an element of contingency in mathematics: the language used etc). — boundless
It is quite usual to believe, nowadays, that 'science knows' or 'science proves' many things that science neither knows nor proves. I am engaged in trying to draw that out, and will continue to do so. — Wayfarer
But if you want to argue that most people believe science as a method claims to be able to prove things that it actually cannot, then you'll need to provide some evidence, because I can't think of a single example from the published philosophical literature. — Pseudonym
The problem I have is more like science as the arbiter of what ought to be considered meaningful and important. — Wayfarer
That is an insightful comment. What you’re touching on here is the relationship between ‘the uncreated’ and the phenomenal domain - the domain of sensory experience. Nowadays any mention of ‘the uncreated’ is categorised as a religious idea - which I suppose it is in some ways. But in the Western philosophical tradition the main source of philosophy about ‘the uncreated’ is the neoPlatonic tradition (as Metaphysician Undiscovered mentioned). And according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, such philosophers are still categorised as ‘pagan’. — Wayfarer
Overall, ‘the uncreated’ is a very difficult idea to grasp. Originally, the intuition was that ‘the uncreated, unconditioned, unborn’ was understood as ‘the source of Being’. In the early days of Christian theology such ideas, originally from the Greek philosophical tradition, were assimilated into Biblical prophecy, although the combination has always been characterised by some tension; the wisdom of Jesus being described as ‘folly to the Greeks’. Nevertheless Greek-speaking Christianity thoroughly absorbed the neo-Platonic philosophy. The Greek reverence for rationality and mathematical reasoning was based on the intuition that mathematical reasoning was inherently more reliable than the testimony of the senses, because the objects of dianoia we’re inherently knowable and constant in a way that sense-objects were not. So they were nearer to the uncreated, in that they likewise weren’t as subject to change and decay as were sense-objects. They were lower than the Ideas, but higher than knowledge concerning particulars. — Wayfarer
I was trying to explain above, originally the intuitions of mathematics and rationalism were regarded in ancient philosophy as morally edifying, not simply for their instrumental value or technical power. But it was the association of mathematical and rational insight with mystical insight, typical of the Pythagoreanism, that differentiated Greek from Indian philosophy and was one of the major sources of the Western tradition of natural science. However, science has now basically abandoned the notion of the ‘uncreated’, perhaps because of its religious connotations. — Wayfarer
This is where I think you're going wrong. I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that science is the arbiter of what is meaningful and important. What those who espouse a scientific worldview are saying is that the scientific method is the only way of claiming any objective knowledge about what is meaningful or important. This is very important distinction. — Pseudonym
Of course if the axioms it is all based on turn out to be wrong, the whole thing comes crashing down, but what use is that knowledge if there's nothing more useful to replace it with? — Pseudonym
I guess to my ear the term "exists" means to be actualised. — apokrisis
That would be where we differ in that you take a theist and Platonist route here? — apokrisis
things that exist on one level, do not exist on another. — Wayfarer
That is the subject of Richard Weaver, Michael Allen Gillespie, and also the 'radical orthodoxy' movement, of which there is quite a good review here (starts from the bottom of the page.) — Wayfarer
To be actualized from what? You presuppose the existence of what is being actualized here. I think to be actual is to exist in one manner, namely, in reality, whereas to be potential is to exist in another manner, namely, in the mind or nature of a thing. — Thorongil
I think there’s a genuine distinction between the terms, and the reason the distinction has been lost is indeed metaphysical. That is why we can only understand things on a horizontal plane, so to speak. — Wayfarer
There’s more to mind than experience - which is after all textbook empiricism. But as Kant showed, the mind makes use of the categories of the understanding, the primary intuitions, and so on, in order to understand. So there’s more to that than just ‘experience’, there’s also intellectual capacity. — Wayfarer
Metaphysical systems can themselves be read as attempts to flatten experience with 'magic' words. — foo
We have a tendency to exaggerate the importance of our own discoveries and to mistake our opinions for facts. ... In this context, it makes perfect sense that science would be built around the measurement of public and non-controversal entities. — foo
Meaningful things, such as God and the supernatural, are asserted by most of those who hold the scientific worldview, to be non-existent. — Metaphysician Undercover
it actually decides what "is" meaningful and important, and denies the existence of that which it deems as not meaningful and important. — Metaphysician Undercover
Reading some of your other posts in this thread, it seems to me that your opponent or the target of your complain is not really the scientific worldview but rather a small group of metaphysicians who build their metaphysics around science rather than the philosophical or religious tradition. — foo
Just the facts, mam.' — foo
We need rather a way of separating fact from opinion. — foo
I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that science is the arbiter of what is meaningful and important. — Pseudonym
the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. — Steve Pinker
The theory that there is no God is a simple theory - it avoids having to create a new concept not already demonstrated to be 'true' (by the standards set out above). Every event, with the exception of the creation of the universe, can currently be explained without God. — Pseudonym
Do you know what this is an image of? — Thorongil
Many serious people claim it regularly.
the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. — Steve Pinker — Wayfarer
That is a far cry from your claim that it tries to be "the arbiter of what ought to be considered meaningful and important." — Pseudonym
You're trying to conflate 'meaningful and important' with 'true'. The scientific worldview has a massive amount to say on how we can talk about things being 'true' or likely, and with a huge amount of evidence to support it's right to do so. That's completely different to making claims about what's 'important, or meaningful' in a subjective sense, about which it makes little comment. — Pseudonym
So here, you’re basically saying that everything that is not measurable, not quantitative, is subjective. So ‘it’s your business what you believe, but don’t think for a minute it’s scientifically true’. — Wayfarer
something which can be considered the basis for qualitative judgement — Wayfarer
All the bluff and bluster apart, that is what is at issue as far as I’m concerned. — Wayfarer
The point at issue, is the extent to which science does or doesn’t say anything meaningful about questions of quality. — Wayfarer
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.