Scholasticism redux.

More Kantian

Metaphysics attempts to create/discover the foundations of reality. The only tool I can see in our toolbox is empirical observation and logic. Can we, then, work backwards to what the bedrock of reality is. What are the fewest axioms that would be required to prop up our current understanding of our world?

A good question for which I do not have the answer except for my post on the origin of the universe.

↪Agent Smith ↪Agent Smith A good question for which I do not have the answer except for my post on the origin of the universe. — val p miranda

Danke!

The trouble with sicence is its philosophy of materialism and that keeps one's imagination in this universe. Using the philosophy of science, I can proove that God does not exist: all that exist is the material, but god is not material; therefore, god does not exist.

:sweat: Not really ...

god is not material; therefore, god does not exist. — val p miranda

Classical materislists (i.e. atomists) like Epicurus & Lucretius reasoned that "the gods" were material (i.e. constituted of atoms & void) if they exist, but that as "perfect beings" (i.e. perfect combinations of atoms & void, therefore "eternal"), unlike the universe and its constituents, "the gods" were far away, even outside this imperfect universe, such that in their blissful perfection they took no notice of – neither affecting nor were affected by – this universe. IIRC, the Cārvāka tradition in ancient India taught this too. So again, your scholastic misunderstanding of non-scholastic (free) thought. Add 'history of philosophy' and 'comparative philosophy' to your toolbox asap is my humble recommendation.

Close enough. — 180 Proof

:snicker: Art thou a judge?

:smirk:

Thanks for post. I read Thomas Aquinas when I was young; I liked his quotes of Aristotle, the master of them that know, but I think I owe more to Kant.

You are! :smile:

Metaphysics Tools are tools of reason of three kinds: principles, logic and knowledge. No existent can create itself, from nothing comes nothing, the principle of non-contradiction (is or is not) and every existent has a beginning except for the first existent are such tools. Tools of logic are the syllogism, the if then and either or construction. As for knowledge, it can be either a priori or empirical. With these tools and imagination, one should be able to arrive at the first existent, and consequently, the origin of the universe. — val p miranda

There have been quite a few threads on the forum recently that use the approach you describe to try to prove the existence of God. I'm not sure if, when you say "first existent," you mean God, but I think the logical process is probably the same. I have never found this kind of approach very convincing. Going back in any sequence, there comes a point where, if you don't want to go on forever, you get to "just because."

My goal was to show my view of the origin of the universe (read my post on the origin of the universe), I think that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, and I'm commited to reason, not faith; however, I understand and sympathize with those who are.

If you had read my post on the origin of the universe you would know that my first existent is IMMATERIAL SPACE.

With these tools and imagination, one should be able to arrive at the first existent, and consequently, the origin of the universe. — val p miranda

Kant argued that the antinomies of reason follow necessarily from attempts to cognize the nature of transcendent reality by means of reason. The fourth of the antinomies is the subject of the thesis
'there belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary' for which the anti-thesis is that 'an absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.' According to Kant, this antinomy, like the others, cannot be resolved by reason. I suppose you could then fall back to Kant's saying that he had to 'declare a limit to knowledge to make room for faith' but if you do, then you're back at faith - not logic.

Kant's antinomies were flawed because they involved time--time does not exist. Again, Kant erred on space; he made it perceptual. If you read my post on the origin of the universe, it eludes Kant's antinomies.

Again, Kant erred on space; he made it perceptual. If you read my post on the origin of the universe, it eludes Kant's antinomies. — val p miranda

Sorry but you don't get to dismiss the philosophy of Kant, nor establish the origin of the Universe, on the basis of one single short paragraph.

this imperfect universe — 180 Proof

It appears that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz either didn't come across this corpus of philosophy or, for some reason, ignored it completely. Vide Best of all possible worlds. Perhaps, like how the Jains dealt with conflict, perfection is conditional (re anekantavada, no one-sidedness or many-sidedness). I dunno!

IIRC, Tertullian is the first Church Father to single-out epicureanism (as representative of "Greek wisdom") as heresy which was foundational in early apologetics and later Christian theology. Leibniz, a devoutly theological and philosophically astute Christian, develops his panglossian modal theodicy deliberately ignoring heresies (such pagan philosophies e.g. atomism / epicureanism) whenever possible – not this his rationalist theodicy-monadology wasn't itself quite heterodox.

IIRC, Tertullian is the first Church Father to single-out epicureanism (as representative of "Greek wisdom") as heresy which was foundational in early apologetics and later Christian theology. Leibniz, a devoutly theological and philosophically astute Christian, develops his panglossian modal theodicy deliberately ignoring heresies (such pagan philosophies e.g. atomism / epicureanism) whenever and as much as possible. — 180 Proof

Arigato 180 Proof.

I was on this other thread, it's on Trump. I mentioned that physicians, while they do treat symptoms (fever, aches & pains, nausea & emesis, so on), their main objective remains treating the disease. On this view, I feel we should consider social problems such as racisim, discriminatiom of any kind, injustice, crimes, psychiatric issues, etc. not as diseases but as symptoms whose aetiology (cause) we have to zero in on and, like a good doctor, manage/medicate.

Intriguingly then Hitler or people who've been compared to him aren't the real problem - they're actually symptoms, not diseases we haven't as yet diagnosed. So long as this remains true, Hitlers and Herods and Ted Bundys will continue to spawn.

There's more but I'll leave it at that.

:point:

:up:

Kant is my favorite philosopher, but he espoused idealism which is on the decline if not dead. He wanted to defeat the scholastics, protect religion from materialism, minimize Rome and protect his position. This idealism of Berkeley and Kant overestimates human's contribution to reality; we don't make reality as Kant and Berkeley did: perception is essence; perception creates space. Appearances appear, but they are not appearances. I'm a Star Trek fan, so I will leave it at that.

I think that one simple paragraph is more than plausible

Tertullian is the first Church Father to single-out epicureanism (as representative of "Greek wisdom") as heresy which was foundational in early apologetics and later Christian theology. — 180 Proof

Now that is an interesting fact.

we don't make reality as Kant and Berkeley did — val p miranda

What do you mean by “make reality”? Something like...make reality out to be? If it is considered that the closest synonym for “to make” is “to create”, the statement reads, “we don’t create reality as Kant and Berkeley did.” Surely that is not what you wish to convey.

Just wondering, and from which would follow...how do we make, or, what do we make of, reality, if not as Kant and Berkeley did.

Make was a poor choice of words.

I started from no universe, then proceeded to first existent. Then I saw a relationship between current space and what might be the first existent, immaterial space. Realizing that mass could not create itself, then it must have been created by the first existent.

Yes, working backwards seems to be the way to proceed. I avoided Kant's too little and to big antinomy explanation,

It was not my aim to prove the existence of God. My view is that there might be a God, there might not be a God. I'm committed to reason as weak as mine is.