Many aspects of the universe are orderly. We invented math to model these features. Why does this orderliness exist? — jgill
Hegel's position on being, as you seem to use the term, is that it is not only inconsequential, but dangerous insofar as it serves to distort essence: "For here we are not concerned with the object in its immediate form, but want to know it as mediated. And our usual view of the task or purpose of philosophy is that it consists in the cognition of the essence of things. By this we understand no more than that things are not to be left in their immediate state, but are rather to be exhibited as mediated or grounded by something else. The immediate being of things is here represented as a sort of rind or curtain behind which the essence is concealed. Now, when we say further that all things have an essence, what we mean is that they are not truly what they immediately show themselves to be. A mere rushing about from one quality to another, and a mere advance from the qualitative to the quantitative and back again, is not the last word; on the contrary, there is something that abides in things, and this is, in the first instance, their essence." — JerseyFlight
You are free to pretend that Aristotelian logic deals with actual being, but it does not, it deals with abstract being, with dead images. Dialectic is thought suited to essence, Aristotle's axioms are principles suited to the creation of abstract categories, not the comprehension of reality. — JerseyFlight
The object's identity and the object's real identity? Then what is the non-real-identity of the object that you are maintaining against the object's real identity? How is this not an exercise in abstraction? It proves that what you are talking about is nothing more than an idea, a stale and lifeless category. — JerseyFlight
My position is not that the abstraction is not the object, but that it distorts our comprehension of the object, the actual being of being is its movement not its fragment. I am saying exactly what Hegel says, take your categories from the phenomena, do not impose them on the phenomena. — JerseyFlight
Thus the principle of identity reads: "Everything is identical with itself, A = A'; and negatively: "A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time." -Instead of being a true law of thinking, this principle is nothing but the law of the abstract understanding. — JerseyFlight
There is new evidence that the so-called laws of physics aren't even constant throughout the universe. You're part of the old school, which is just now beginning to get bumped out. — JerseyFlight
. . . what if symmetry isn't part of the equation, what if we are discovering chaos? — JerseyFlight
-Instead of being a true law of thinking, this principle is nothing but the law of the abstract understanding. — JerseyFlight
1) you only assert all this. You have no evidence — Gregory
3) a thing exists, it does not "have evistence". Descartes was right about that, Aquinas wrong — Gregory
The propositional form itself already contradicts it, since a proposition promises a distinction between subject and predicate as well as identity; and the identity-proposition does not furnish what its form demands. — JerseyFlight
That's right, formal logic deals with essences, not with actual things. But dialectics is not formal logic. — Metaphysician Undercover
Is it really so orderly after all? There is new evidence that the so-called laws of physics aren't even constant throughout the universe. You're part of the old school, which is just now beginning to get bumped out. More critical scientists are emerging who aren't afraid to ask the question, what if symmetry isn't part of the equation, what if we are discovering chaos? Now this terrifies idealist thinkers, this is why they begin with the projection of idealism. (I should go gently here, not my strong suit, because reality is pretty damn scary when you remove all the idealist assumptions -- that is, when one has been programmed to derive their sense of safety and well-being from them). Nevertheless, the discovery of disorder and chaos doesn't actually change anything except for our beliefs. We can still use our intelligence to make a world that is valuable to life. — JerseyFlight
In this way emotions, if even relegated to, or especially if most rigorously relegate to, the most infinitesimal term, actually rule the count. — Gary M Washburn
BTW, MU, are you a mathematical realist or anti-realist? — 3017amen
How to interpret Aristotle is highly contentious. You indoctrinated yourself into a Thomistic take on this, which says existence is a thing added to form. But form must exist to have existence added to it. — Gregory
Aquinas was a genius only of coming out with thousands of faulty arguments. — Gregory
Then we move philosophically into the realization of Becoming. A thing is both itself and it's opposite. Not transformed yet into a third thing, like grey from white and black. But a grey contradiction nontheless. Things are both themselves and something else, however this doesn't mean there is no rest in truth at the end for Hegel. The organic and his discussions of it point to another space, the realm of Absolute truth. Contradiction starts the movement but does not define the destination. Consider the use of the Universal in the dialect — Gregory
I’m liking your exposition. Frankly I find it difficult to draw a sharp line between any of these positions as they all seem to be generally right, but then also then generally wrong in the same way to. — apokrisis
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.