Seems to me that again there is an is/ought problem here.

In so far as "levels of being" ascribes differing values to different things it is an evaluation, and so it is about our attitude towards things rather than how they are.

Which is fine, provided that our evaluations are not mistake for how things are.

I assume I get to be a substance in some sense, that I am not less real than my mother was because my existence is dependent on her having existed. — Srap Tasmaner

But her existence is equally dependent on her mother. Arguably, you are less real because you're farther back the line. The train engine is most real. The second car is second-most real. The third car is third-most real, etc. (And now ditch the linear paradigm.)

The idea seems simpler than many are making it. It's basically levels of ontological dependence (whether per se or per accidens). But then apparently we want to make it an extrapolation of Aristotle's distinction between substance and accident, and that's where things become more confusing. Still, the basic idea seems straightforward.

Which is fine, provided that our evaluations are not mistake for how things are. — Banno

Why do you think the first articulation of the is/ought problem came from David Hume, the 'godfather of positivism', and a principal of the Scottish Enlightenment? Not coincidental, right? 'What is', as distinct from 'what ought to be', in Hume's context, is what is precisely measurable and can be stated with certainty. Which doesn't even extend to causal relations, as it turned out.

Aristotle's distinction between substance and accident... — Leontiskos

As noted, the use of the term 'substance' is inherently confusing and misleading in respect to metaphysics. See the reference upthread to Heidegger's criticism of the use of the term as a translaton for ouisia.

Imagine if, in that essay we're referring to, the expression was 'all that is real, is beings and their modes of existence' instead of 'substance and modes'. Even if it's also not quite correct, I think it conveys the original intention more clearly.

'What is', as distinct from 'what ought to be', in Hume's context, is what is precisely measurable and can be stated with certainty. Which doesn't even extend to causal relations, as it turned out. — Wayfarer

Probably down to Hume, I don't see as that matters much. But values can be stated with certainty and measured.

I do really like the idea of trying to come up with a continuous graduation reality concept, which isn't an accuracy of a representation, or a way of counting things that already apply, or a way of saying how individuated an entity is. But I don't think it's possible, honestly. — fdrake

We need a metric space whose points are things that are real. Then a distance function for pairs of points. But first, one needs to decide what "real" means. I suggest anything our consciousness registers, from the moon to flights of fancy. But where the purely physical runs up against the purely mental could be a problem worth a thousand pages of philosophical ramblings.

It's basically levels of ontological dependence (whether per se or per accidens). — Leontiskos

Go ahead and explain that. Some of us are uneducated.

A sign or symbol has an identity that transcends the material constituents from which it is composed. — Wayfarer

Ah, well it's my fault then for picking a well-known geometric shape. I only meant that the sticks are arranged in such a way that they make up a thing, temporarily anyway.

Arrangements of things into other things is, in some circles, a core problem of metaphysics. And it's something a little different from the problem of collections, which is why I mentioned them both.

And it does raise questions of hierarchy in a straightforward way. Each of the sticks is a part of the triangular whole. I didn't want to rehearse all the usual arguments here (triangles of Theseus, and so on), but just see what we might say about hierarchy, since that's our topic.

Very good. Point well made.

I'll go one step further. A deeper question is whether the spectrum of reality is continuous. As Einstein inferred, the moon exists - and our imaginations exist. What is in between? — jgill

I am going to answer your deep question with a simple: no. Is the spectrum of reality continuous, my answer is no. The other option is yes? Maybe in one direction it can be continuous....

In between the moon, and my imagination is me and distance out of my bounds, surviving outside of them is not worth experience what I can staying within them, in the environment I am well adapted to and attached / drawn to being. The space is between. In the space is possibly nothing. The imagination and moon....the moon is seen from a far distance, the imagination is at no distance from the place you are standing, the grounds you rest upon, used to travel from place to place.

The imagination has no place without the mind, that comes from the human being from the powers within using the organs we were born with, to function as a species living in nature. Human nature, the mind is of it. The thinking is of experiences as humans with a mind of your own. The brain, is the hub for the mind. The brain that undergoes damage from a trauma, like an accident or something the cognitive abilities can be lost, needing to recover, retrain, or deal with the loss and change of lifestyle for the remaining time alive.


Perhaps the space between is just that, but perhaps if a "thing" ought to be between it has to do with the transition or power that goes into conscious mind's of a human brain. As far as I am concerned, a soul, spirit, consciousness as an EXPERIENCE is linked to the brain, meaning without the brain the conscious experience of humans would not be...Consciousness is aware of the body and the connection to it? The soul is of consciousness and consciousness is of human nature or human evolution with is of life...which is of, love? Sex? Partners? The perfect match?

What that even requires, is of the aware being, soul included. Feet moving, the body brings the brain along for the ride! Or run...The brain is moving, mind is included, linked to the person, like a ball and chain.....body is moving, imagination is moving, trailing behind...whipping around turns, bumping into things, aware of location and self in the world via mind, dreams, and imaginations, visions, hallucinations, etc

Between is nothing meaning, I am wondering if it is even a "thing" , should it be a thing if it were to be moved, meaning by human aid. Causing the motion by hand or with purpose/intentions to indirectly continously loop, or remain in a cycle. is it that the cycle is stuck, or can that become stabilized in that where it is stuck, as the cycle continues, the stuckness caused the growth and stopped the movement in the natural direction, how to get stuck? If we can claim being in a stuck cycle, are we aware of something else to give us the idea in the first place, if we could be stuck, do we not for sure know where we should be? Stuck in a cycle or stable in a current? Flow.......Like a hobo on the tracks waiting for a train to hop. That train has wheels, engine, and motion...staying on track, set up and built to transport things. Between the imagination and the moon depends on the track or path taken, and the fate awaits.

The timing of the minds thoughts, the act of thinking, and the SPEED of comprehension cognitively, understanding thinking and how much trust the self has in themselves is measured? Sure, why not...but Also, why? Unbothered. Yet, I am still curious to say the least, but not fixed or sure of my stance. I am just sharing what I do know and that is in the form of typed thoughts. Streaming thoughts. It's a style.....catch it if you can. Note it, but it is not but also is always what IT seems. If what it seems is in fact aligned with what IT IS, that is just a way to explain after the fact, using justified actions for self in that moment...it passes judgement with no questions.

Anyways, to jgill's question again, what is in between is not of measured motion, perhaps the speed is timed but it has to do with the instinct or muscle memory we have learned how its being used/functioning, is that reasonable to cognitive skills and performance of such? Usually so, we can tell in the womb nowadays the disabilities of the baby before it is out of the mother and into it's first day of life breathing oxygen. The organs attached is linked to quality of life..genetics are telling, precaution is taken quicker with advanced medicine. Is the medical field as a whole where they need to be at the level they operate and work in? Are people paid what they deserve? Usually not, but we accept or tolerate a rate that meets our basic needs at the minimum, sometimes we lose grip of self in realty and abuse our time by neglecting the self in the present.

We just need to be aware, become it, then decide after you really reflect. By grounding oneself and acting as you will...happens with reason, and as accordingly to benefits us to our line, or boundary we set for self needs. We need and want differently, but it can be based on what we consider to be efficient to maintain lifestyle currently experiencing. The life you lead, the day to day self of character and the alignment with soul is in the consciousness of self. That requires awareness....of the body with the will and the timing of feelings and reflection was used to cause a change or certain outcome? Only one outcome exists...has, will, does, ought, shall and it is what and when it will and was always ought. To be. At it. Life is at it, death has had it, the soul remains and reminds all in a collective consciousness

This person (WE) has/ought to have more trust in ourselves. The power is in our hands, and from our minds of our life experience in motion, space and with the track of time.the change and eventually unchangeable direction or movement maybe power (time constraint) to move thoughts using the required brain, intentions behind it could add to degree of energy or power added / wasted to importance/attention/work required to perform these cognitive skills, mentally, and communicate it / write it down physically in tangible material. But the soul is moving from these pieces of work. Moving is it? Or fluctuations occur and we can feel them in the air. Our senses inform us of things, and our brain tells US what is going on in order to know how to make the next move, as we are moving in time. Day after day, tomorrow is coming, today is there. Time was lost, time is never gone just...What else was gone, besides our selves? Our minds can be lost, but what are the chances they are found? Good as new? Better? Worse?

The condition is dependent. Time, interest that life revolves around, attention spending efficiency, awareness. In others, in self. How do emotions attach to tangible material things, but the experience being subjective doesnt matter. The objective part is that it is all subjective, biased, or effected by envirment, nature, nurture....but luck, chance, and timing is funny. Love is a funny thing. A funny thing and the humor of it, is of the funny person and laughed at by those with similar humor, aware high, or those who are followers, lost/looking rightfully so, rationally...doing what they ought to be, right where they need to be. THEY have to SEE that first, but to see means choosing to ignore what they know from what they see, is believing what they dont want to see, but blaming the world praying for God or the world to change. Before we ask of such demands of the world, Universe, God, Angels, As above so below, we ought to have answered and confirmed with surety that no change on our end is worth the effort. That option exists, the mind state or frame under the influence of many factors play a role in decision making moments that cant be undone past a certain point.

The art we see, music we hear, words we read move us. The way they made us move and feel are two different things and separate from what we think. When we think and move and feel, they happen almost fluidly. The arts are observed. The emotions, are moving created and used differently impacting subjectively, meaning each person is experiencing it differently, how the life path is built and where we are moving towards depends on the light we get from the darkest place we see is based on memory, learned lessons, life experience, time invested, and wisdom gained...Was fate earned, received or delivered. According to time and nature or by observing what we can say is real...What we believe to be true is real. Fake news is real, as that...fake news. It always existed, we made it what it is. We deal with it separately, at a later time and boy is it the occasion....

Moving the imagination, thoughts, ideas, visions, dreams to a piece of work, art depicting experiences, events, emotions, dreams etc. literally as they were (how can we know? who cares? do we need to? sometimes yes, sometimes NO) Art can be an exaggeration and that is style. This is of course opinion based, but it is possible to objective or "grade" Art for the lets say, taste, technique, impact, rubric perhaps? I am far from an artist, but a creative.

Moving thoughts along a track, hmm. Those grounds for thoughts to thrive are different and unfamiliar territory for some. It is the place, to be, not bound to anything in space or time as we know it because we experience what we know in the mind, dream state similar or lifelike to the detailed accounts of that experience. Having two at one time different experiences of one thing.... space time, or travel as a material body WITH thoughts attributed to us. These thoughts are of US, the awareness of the consciousness is a degree to which effects the experience in waves of intensity, impacting mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually or all in different times, combos, and for reasons that are knowable...ought to be known by the self, which makes the soul AWARE of the body that is experiencing life.

The communication between soul and consciousness is or may be unknowable at the human level, as far as what is beyond us...well, we ought to find out before we die. Or is dying required for the cycle to complete? Birth to Death. The human lifespan, life cycle...death cycle? What is keeping these cycles intact where they may be in space? Evolution? I think evolution emerges from or is caused by the specific species and it's life cycle from start to no end, but how it arrives to one. When the end is near, can we feel it coming?

The path of the cycles. The placement, the power of it. I think only we humans have the pleasure or luck to experience it, life, for what it is....either which way does not matter, because their is/was/will be no other option at the time when it counts. It as in LIFE, counts. It answers the question, whether you like it or not. The ask is what you get, "you have to give to get," I like to say and truly believe. It is that simple, As above so below and you get what you give......the thing is you get what you give is biased towards the being and will of the person...it is not karma, it is like ultimate fate. Unreasonable doubt....

Creative minded people and links to authenticity and individuality is something I am now finding may be interesting to look deeper into...Perhaps, this is how/why you can point them out with the name actually being present. Specific artists known for the style. The way they write, sound, sing, play an instrument is observable and by those who call themselves fans or just those who happen to frequent the work by chance or choice, unbothered...for now. --cvt 11/21/24 1241AM, hold before posting, current version above is pre-draft, T1, og


Great discussion topic! 11/21/24 1035pm cvt

I suggest anything our consciousness registers, from the moon to flights of fancy. But where the purely physical runs up against the purely mental could be a problem worth a thousand pages of philosophical ramblings — jgill

Right?!

As Einstein inferred, the moon exists - and our imaginations exist. What is in between? — jgill

I'll take that as a cue. As is well-known, Einstein paused on one of his afternoon walks, and asked his walking companion, Abraham Pais, 'does the moon continue to exist when nobody is looking at it?' Of course, was the expected answer. But why ask it? What prompted that? It was the now well-known 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum physics, formulated by his younger contemporaries Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born, among others (although at the time, the name hadn't been coined.) The question crystallizes the tension between the realist view (that objects have determinate properties independently of their observation) and Bohr's attitude - that physics can only ever reveal nature as exposed to our method of questioning.

Now how this relates to this question in the OP. Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders, actually happens to believe that reality comes in degrees. Heisenberg, a lifelong student of Greek philosophy, re-purposes Aristotle's idea of 'potentia' to solve the conundrums of quantum physics.

three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. ...At its root, the idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.

This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.

Considering potential things to be real is not exactly a new idea, as it was a central aspect of the philosophy of Aristotle, 24 centuries ago. An acorn has the potential to become a tree; a tree has the potential to become a wooden table. Even applying this idea to quantum physics isn’t new. Werner Heisenberg, the quantum pioneer famous for his uncertainty principle, considered his quantum math to describe potential outcomes of measurements of which one would become the actual result. The quantum concept of a “probability wave,” describing the likelihood of different possible outcomes of a measurement, was a quantitative version of Aristotle’s potential, Heisenberg wrote in his well-known 1958 book Physics and Philosophy. “It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.” — Quantum Mysteries Dissolve....

According to this interpretation, the act of observation 'actualises' or 'manifests' the potential possibilities described by the wave function Ψ.

Something which I think is pregnant with all kinds of philosophical possibilities.

Consider the 'blind spot'. When a human being sees anything, their physiology means they have a blind spot in the scene, a blank which their imagination fills in by reference to neighbouring parts of the image.

I recall a reductionist explanation of this phenomenon wherein the scientist explained the blind spot, and went on to say, 'whereas in reality...' there may be something different there, in that blind spot.

The reductionist wanted there to be reality or not-reality, a binary choice. But to me the difference between ordinary visual perception and visual perception through instruments involve different angles on 'reality', which one might distinguish by talk of 'degrees'.

Gravity
Kings
Justice

I could see what someone would mean by saying that gravity is "more real" than kings and that kings are "moral real" than justice.

There's an extensional component to "gravity" that "justice" doesn't have (unless Platonism is correct), and there's an intensional component to "kings" that "gravity" doesn't have.

Gravity
Kings
Justice

I could see what someone would mean by saying that gravity is "more real" than kings and that kings are "moral real" than justice.

There's an extensional component to "gravity" that "justice" doesn't have (unless Platonism is correct), and there's an intensional component to "kings" that "gravity" doesn't have. — Michael

Consciousness
Matter

Consciousness may not itself be more real than matter. But the state of affairs that includes both consciousness and matter is "more" than the state of affairs consisting of only matter. What else can that "more" be if not "more real"? Ideas are realized. Things become real that weren't before in a non-trivial, non-mechanistic way.

Well, one definition of "real" is "existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual".

Justice, for example, isn't a physical thing – or at least not a physical thing in the sense that gravity is a physical thing.

At least part of what dictates a being’s reality, according to these philosophers, is the extent to which its existence is dependent on other things: the less dependent a thing is on other things for its existence, the more real it is. — Wayfarer

Just like how quantum mechanics basically only form a defined and measured reality when probabilities are in relation to something (the measurement/instrument, surrounding elements defining it). I.e The only things that isn't, is that which is in total detachement to everything in reality and everything that is, is that which bonds with something else.

Kind of like a powder of iron dust on a table, they have no defined form in their spread out state of possible forms to be part of, but moving a magnet through (reality/measurement/known states), gravitate the non-states to becoming part of a known state (being part of and in relation to the magnet and its form).

Well, one definition of "real" is "existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual". — Michael

If the imaginary could be summed up as the result of a physical specific state of our brain and its present energy distribution, would that not mean it is also existing? And since theory and fiction can only be something when interpreted or imagined by something, they become a form of physical reality through it? Even though the perception we have of it isn't what constitutes the actual physical of them, just like our perception of light isn't the be all end all of the properties of its physical nature.

What else can that "more" be if not "more real"? — Pantagruel

Cogito

If the imaginary could be summed up as the result of a physical specific state of our brain and its present energy distribution, would that not mean it is also existing? — Christoffer

Certainly my concept of justice exists as a physical brain state, but when we talk about justice we're not talking about people's brain states.

Certainly my concept of justice exists as a physical brain state, but when we talk about justice we're not talking about people's brain states. — Michael

No, but the brain state that produce concepts of justice is akin to magenta not existing as an actual physical color. It's a state of physical reality that produce a perceptive reality in us, but that reality isn't a thing, it's just a product of the physical, i.e there is a physical state that constitutes the effect of your internalized concept of justice.

Does magenta exist?

I distinguish sensations from concepts. Colour is like pain, not like justice.

I distinguish sensations from concepts. Colour is like pain, not like justice. — Michael

In what way does your concept of justice distinguish itself from your perception of pain? The sensation of pain or perception of magenta is just as much a construct of your brain as your concept of justice. The brain doesn't distinguish between the two, its merely forming different neural pathway maps based on what is going on. Like, what happens if you condition someone to feel pain when thinking about a specific concept of justice? Then you have a neural map that is both an internalized concept of justice as well as pain, inseparable as a perceptive thing.

Well, one definition of "real" is "existing or occurring in the physical world; — Michael

Well that doesn't beg any questions.....

Ideas exist in the physical world (ta-da). Justice is an idea. Ergo justice is real.

Cogito — Corvus

ergo sum

Ideas exist in the physical world (ta-da). Justice is an idea. Ergo justice is real. — Pantagruel

I didn't say it isn't real. I said that I could see what someone would mean by saying that gravity is more real than justice.

There is the concept of gravity and there is gravity.
There is the concept of justice, but that's it.

With gravity there is a physical thing distinct from our brain states that "corresponds" to the concept, but with justice there isn't.

In what way does your concept of justice distinguish itself from your perception of pain? The sensation of pain or perception of magenta is just as much a construct of your brain as your concept of justice. — Christoffer

Well there's certainly a distinction between the concept of pain and the sensation of pain. They are both brain states but they're different kinds of brain states.

I don't think the concept of sight is of much comfort to a blind man.

ergo sum — Pantagruel

Descartes was right in saying the most self evident reality is"cogito" or "Ich denke" in Kant. All other reality is based on it. Indeed one cannot doubt one is thinking. In Kant, all experience is based on Ich denke, so it is the a priori precondition for possibility of all existence.

Well there's certainly a distinction between the concept of pain and the sensation of pain. They are both brain states but they're different kinds of brain states. — Michael

While the two can be different on paper, both are composed of brain states. Both are perceptive and internalized products of physical processes. Just like magenta doesn't exist, it is the interplay of the biological being that is us, with the photons of specific wavelengths that forms our perception of magenta.

In essence, all is part of the physical as a holistic physical thing. There are no dividing lines in physical reality, only due to the human psychological process of categorization, which is automatic and fundamental to human cognition.

So our act of categorizing and dividing up things is for us to make sense of it, but in reality, there is only one whole of interplaying energy and matter.

Because of it, all exist. Illusions that we experience as the perception of reality or concepts of abstract things are merely illusions, they don't exist as we see them in our minds eye or conceptual process, they're only illusions we attribute as existing because that's how we operate as animals. My perception of reality, my concepts and ideas are only as as real as me hallucinating something into a belief of its existence, but it doesn't exist.

The only thing that exist and is the actual reality of my illusionary experience, is my brain state producing it.

I don't think the concept of sight is of much comfort to a blind man. — Michael

Yet, if his eyes don't work, his brain will still have the capacity to form a neural map that produces an internal image. And the concept of sight will still be something he internalize, even if the abstract nature of it for him produce a wildly alien internalization for the seeing person.

I didn't say it isn't real. I said that I could see what someone would mean by saying that gravity is more real than justice. — Michael

:up:
If we can agree that there can be degrees of reality then, for my part, that is the critical thing.

Descartes was right in saying the most self evident reality is"cogito" or "Ich denke" in Kant. All other reality is based on it. Indeed one cannot doubt one is thinking. In Kant, all experience is based on Ich denke, so it is the a priori precondition for possibility of all existence. — Corvus

My avatar agrees.

Degrees also seem like a quantitative concept - as if one thing can exist more than another, or exist harder in a given way. As opposed to a qualitative one - like an idea might exist in a different sense to a cup. The former corresponds to changes in degree of reality within a type, the latter corresponds to differences type. Compare heights and masses, two different quantitative axes, differences of degree. Ideality and materiality, two different seemingly binary properties, differences in kind.

Yes, it is tricky. This notion is developed in St. Thomas through the concept of "virtual quantity" (more on that at the very bottom if you're interested).

So, to the skeptics, , I will offer up what I think is one of the better summaries of how this works in Plato, in a context focusing on his psychology and human freedom (freedom as self-determination and self-governance).

By calling what we experience with our senses less real than the Forms, Plato is not saying that what we experience with our senses is simply illusion. The “reality” that the Forms have more of is not simply their not being illusions. If that’s not what their extra reality is, what is it? The easiest place to see how one could suppose that something that isn’t an illusion, is nevertheless less real than something else, is in our experience of ourselves.

In Republic book iv, Plato’s examination of the different "parts of the soul” leads him to the conclusion that only the rational part can integrate the soul into one, and thus make it truly “just.” Here is his description of the effect of a person’s being governed by his rational part, and therefore “just”:

Justice . . . is concerned with what is truly himself and his own. . . . [The person who is just] binds together [his] parts . . . and from having been many things he becomes entirely one, moderate, and harmonious. Only then does he act. (Republic 443d-e)

Our interest here (I’ll discuss the “justice” issue later) is that by “binding together his parts” and “becoming entirely one,” this person is “truly himself.” That is, as I put it in earlier chapters, a person who is governed by his rational part is real not merely as a collection of various ingredients or “parts,” but as himself. A person who acts purely out of appetite, without any examination of whether that appetite is for something that will actually be “good,” is enacting his appetite, rather than anything that can appropriately be called “himself.” Likewise for a person who acts purely out of anger, without examining whether the anger is justified by what’s genuinely good. Whereas a person who thinks about these issues before acting “becomes entirely one” and acts, therefore, in a way that expresses something that can appropriately be called “himself.”

In this way, rational self-governance brings into being an additional kind of reality, which we might describe as more fully real than what was there before, because it integrates those parts in a way that the parts themselves are not integrated. A person who acts “as one,” is more real as himself than a person who merely enacts some part or parts of himself. He is present and functioning as himself, rather than just as a collection of ingredients or inputs.

We all from time to time experience periods of distraction, absence of mind, or depression, in which we aren’t fully present as ourselves. Considering these periods from a vantage point at which we are fully present and functioning as ourselves, we can see what Plato means by saying that some non-illusory things are more real than other non-illusory things. There are times when we ourselves are more real as ourselves than we are at other times.

Indeed, we can see nature as a whole as illustrating this issue of how fully integrated and “real as itself ” a being can be. Plants are more integrated than rocks, in that they’re able to process nutrients and reproduce themselves, and thus they’re less at the mercy of their environment. So we could say that plants are more effectively focused on being themselves than rocks are, and in that sense they’re more real as themselves. Rocks may be less vulnerable than plants are, but what’s the use of invulnerability if what’s invulnerable isn’t you?

Animals, in turn, are more integrated than plants are, in that animals’ senses allow them to learn about their environment and navigate through it in ways that plants can’t. So animals are still more effectively focused on being themselves than plants are, and thus more real as themselves.

Humans, in turn, can be more effectively focused on being themselves than many animals are, insofar as humans can determine for themselves what’s good, rather than having this be determined for them by their genetic heritage and their environment. Nutrition and reproduction, motility and sensation, and a thinking pursuit of the Good each bring into being a more intensive reality as oneself than is present without them.

Now, what all of this has to do with the Forms and their supposedly greater reality than our sense experience is that it’s by virtue of its pursuit of knowledge of what’s really good, that the rational part of the soul distinguishes itself from the soul’s appetites and anger and so forth. The Form of the Good is the embodiment of what’s really good. So pursuing knowledge of the Form of the Good is what enables the rational part of the soul to govern us, and thus makes us fully present, fully real, as ourselves. In this way, the Form of the Good is a precondition of our being fully real, as ourselves.

But presumably something that’s a precondition of our being fully real must be at least as real as we are when we are fully real. It’s at least as real as we are, because we can’t deny its reality without denying our own functioning as creatures who are guided by it or are trying to be guided by it.13 And since it’s at least as real as we are, it’s more (fully) real than the material things that aren’t guided by it and thus aren’t real as themselves.

From Robert M. Wallace - Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present

The key thing here is "self-determination." But this can be taken to be "self-determination" in a more abstract, metaphysical sense as well, as it is in other readings of Plato, Aristotle and Hegel (who is in some sense very Aristotelian). For example:

[Hegel] thinks he has demonstrated, in the chapter on “Quality,” that the ordinary conceptions of quality, reality, or finitude are not systematically defensible, by themselves, but can only
be properly employed within a context of negativity or true infinity...

Note: For instance, one cannot understand “red” atomically, but rather it depends on other notions such as “color” and the things (substances) that can be red, etc. to be intelligible. This notion is similar to how the Patristics (e.g., St. Maximus) developed Aristotle in light of the apparent truth that even "proper beings" (e.g., a horse) are not fully intelligible in terms of themselves. For instance, try explaining what a horse *is* without any reference to any other plant, animal, or thing. This has ramifications for freedom as the ability to transcend “what one already is,”—the “given”—which relies on our relation to a transcendent absolute Good—a Good not unrelated to how unity generates (relatively) discrete/self-determining beings/things.

[Hegel] has now shown, through his analysis of “diversity” and opposition, that within such a context of negativity or true infinity, the reality that is described by apparently merely “contrary” concepts will turn out to be better described, at a fundamental level, by contradictory concepts. The fundamental reality will be contradictory, rather than merely contrary. It’s not that nothing will be neither black nor white, but rather that qualities such as black, white, and colorless are less real (less able to be what they are by virtue of [only] themselves) than self-transcending finitude (true infinity) is…

From Robert M. Wallace - Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God

So, to 's point here: "Seems to me that again there is an is/ought problem here," the response from this wide tradition would be to say that there isn't precisely because the Good by which things are "good or bad" (note: not just morally, but also in cases like a "good car" or a "bad basketball player") are not unrelated to the Unity by which anything is any thing at all. Rather, the ability to say true things about things, or for there to be discrete entities that are relatively self-determining such that they are not merely bundles of external causes in a single truly global process, is grounded in aims, teloi. And these in turn entail some notion of goodness vis-à-vis ends.

The obvious rejoinder from the modern context here is that "rocks don't have ends," which seems true, but Aristotle doesn't think rocks are proper beings.* And, whereas being a substance in Aristotle has to do with contradictory opposition (i.e. a thing is either man or not-man, fish or not-fish), unity and multiplicity involve contrariety (i.e. privation, perfect privation, or relation), and so it occurs on a sliding scale. Hence, man is, of the sensible things we know, the most able to become unified, precisely because man has access to transcendent aims (but note that such transcendence does not preclude a naturalistic understanding of human essence or self-determination).

Of course, this position also relies on a notion of analogical predication. What is “good” for a tiger, an ant, or a daffodil is “good” in an analogous sense, just as what constitutes “healthy food” varies between a horse and a bee, or between individual human beings (e.g. peanut butter is not "healthy" for those who are allergic to it.) But on the classical view we must not make the mistake of assuming that this makes “goodness” equivocal or fully relativized; the same principle of unity is at work in each, but reaches a higher, more perfected form in some organisms, most notably man. And this same understanding is fruitfully applied to human organizations (also centered around aims), or human practices, such as the sciences (which in turn foster freedom and self-determination, by reducing ignorance, increasing our causal powers through techne, teaching us things about our own nature and habit formation, etc.)

Analogy is key to how there can be different "levels" to things. For instance, it is what allows St. Thomas in the Disputed Questions to claim that, while truth is primarily "in the mind," it is still secondarily "in things." The problem of moving beyond skepticism in modern thought can be usefully framed in terms of an inability to conceive of truth or knowledge outside of binary contradictory opposition. Peter Redpath has a lot of great stuff on this, although his lectures (on Youtube) are not always easy to follow.

Substance

The term had also morphed quite a bit by the time Descartes and Locke are working with it. In the Aristotelian context, substances are things. There are different types of thinghood. A cat is not a horse and a horse is not a mountain. "Being can be said many ways." "Green" and "fast" exist, as do "larger" or "heavier," but there are parasitic on thinghood. For something to be green or fast it has to be something.

Aristotle frames his project helpfully in a literature review of past thinkers, and the problem of how being can be one (i.e. everything that is, "is" in a certain sense and interacts with everything else, even if only indirectly) but also be many (i.e. our world is composed of many things of many different types.)

I think this is important to keep in mind because later critiques of substance (e.g. Deleuze) fall into equivocating on the later notion of substance and the Aristotelian one. And then it is also easy to think of "subjects" as "knowing subjects" and not merely the "subject of predication." But I don't think the conceptualization in terms of "finite" versus "infinite/transcendent," or "mental" versus "extended" are liable to be helpful, at least not for understanding a good deal of the philosophy that centers around different levels of reality.

Particularly, I think the "Great Chain of Being" makes significantly more sense when situated inside an understanding of the Doctrine of Transcendentals, but that itself is a particularly thorny issue that often gets written off in ways that don't understand it (e.g. Scruton's book on beauty jettisons it out of hand on the grounds that things that we generally agree are bad, e.g. MIRVs landing on their targets, might also be beautiful, which is really misunderstanding the position).

Not that aspect, more that the individual as the arbiter of value, and that all individuals are equal in principle. Within an heirarchical ontology, there are also degrees of understanding, where individuals might have greater or lesser insight. I had a rather terse exchange about that in your other thread from which this one was spawned (here). That said, I hasten to add that I support the aspect of liberalism as the ability to accomodate a diversity of opinions, but not necessarily that it means that every opinion is equal, just because someone holds it.

Right, the idea that doing ontology itself might be a limit on freedom in Derrida and Foucault, or Deleuze's attempt to save ontology by making it "creative," presuppose that metaphysics is more something "we create" and less something "discovered." If it is the latter, then not only can some opinions be more correct than others, but it will also be the case that wrong opinions lead to ignorance, and on very many views ignorance itself is a limit on freedom (e.g. the entire idea of "informed consent," or just the basic idea that one cannot successfully do what one doesn't know how to do.)


----




Anyhow, on virtual quantity, I have some stuff from my notes:

...]we begin by considering how unity (resistance to division) and its essential properties become the principles and measures that are the proximate cause of all species. Here, we must recall that Aristotle distinguishes between magnitude (continuous) and multitude (discrete) vis-à-vis quantity. This is, however, not the only distinction Aristotle makes re quantity. He also has a more basic metaphysical distinction between dimensive quantity and virtual quantity.2

Both magnitude and multitude are species of dimensive/bulk quantity. This is most obvious with magnitude given its obvious relation to figure. Bodies in our world have length, width, and depth. Yet multitude is also dimensive in that it relies on the distinction between different bodies (or numerous distinct parts in a part/whole composite).

By contrast virtual quantity emanates intensively from a substance’s form, rather than extensively from its matter, and is “caused by the accidental form ‘quality,’ not the accidental property [of] dimensive ‘quantity.’” As St. Thomas puts it: “virtual quantity is measured firstly by its source—that is, by the perfection of that form or nature… just as we speak of great heat on account of its intensity and perfection.”3

Virtual quantity is thus a measure of the degree to which an entity perfects its form (i.e. a measure of completeness, self-governance, and unity), becoming fully “what it is.” We can think of privation (absence) and possession (presence) as orienting the “number line” upon which such quantity manifests. We might also consider possession in this sense to be a greater degree of participation in the ideal to which a thing aspires by nature (e.g. in St. Maximus)*.

We can see a parallel of this idea in Plato, with the concept of entities being able to be “more real as themselves,” and man being becoming more fully real(ized) when he is unified by the rational part of the soul and the desire for what is truly good.4 I would argue that we can even see a vestigial element of this notion in Nietzsche and other existentialist philosophers. There, the focus is on becoming “more fully what one is.”5

* Just for notes on where Aristotle defines beings (which is also a major part of the Metaphysics)

At the outset of Book II of the Physics, Aristotle identifies proper beings as those things that are the source of their own production.1 Beings make up a whole—a whole which is oriented towards some end. This definition would seem to exclude mere parts of an animal. For example, a red blood cell is not the source of its own production, nor is it a self-governing whole. Lymphocytes, for example, can be seen as being generated and destroyed in accordance with a higher-level aims-based "parallel-terraced scan," despite being in some sense relatively self-governing.

On this view, living things would most fully represent “beings.” By contrast, something like a rock is not a proper being. A rock is a mere bundle of external causes. Moreover, if one breaks a rock in half, one simply has two smaller rocks (an accidental change). Whereas if one breaks a tree in half, the tree—as a being—will lose its unity and cease to exist (i.e. death, a substantial change).

Aristotle’s mention of Empedocles' elements early in Book II might suggest that all “natural kinds” possess a nature (e.g. carbon atoms as much as men). Yet a lump of carbon or volume of hydrogen gas are both in many ways similar to a rock in that they are mere “bundles of external causes. ”Yet there is also a clear sense in which something like an water molecule is a more unified than a volume of water in a container, the latter of which is easily divided. Hence, we might suppose that unity exists in gradations.2 We can also think of the living organism as achieving a higher sort of unity, such that its diverse multitude of parts come to be truly unified into a whole through an aim.

Now, if we step back and try to consider our original question: if being is “many” or “one,” it seems to me that the most readily apparent example of the multiplicity of beings and of their unity is the human mind itself. We have our own thoughts, experiences, memories, and desires, not other people’s. The multiplicity of other things, particularly other people, and the unity of our own phenomenal awareness is something that is given.3


1 i.e. “possessing a nature.” Actually, at the very start of Book II, Aristotle gives us a brief list of things that might constitute proper beings possessing their own nature, namely animals and their parts, as well as simple elements (i.e., Empedocles’ five elements). However, Aristotle revises this estimation in the second paragraph.

2 Very large objects like stars, nebulae, planets, and galaxies are an excellent example here. These are so large that the relatively weak force of gravity allows them to possess a sort of unity. Even if a planet is hit by another planet (our best hypothesis for how our moon formed), it will reform due to the attractive power of gravity. Likewise, stars, galaxies, etc. have definable “life cycles,” and represent a sort of “self-organizing system,” even though they are far less self-organizing than organisms. By contrast, a rock has a sort of arbitrary unity (although it does not lack all unity! We can clearly distinguish discrete rocks in a non-arbitrary fashion).

3 Hume, Nietzche, and many Buddhist thinkers have challenged the notion of a unified self. I don’t think we have to entirely disagree with their intuitions here. Following Plato, we might acknowledge that a person can be more or less unified. Indeed, we can agree with Nietzsche’s description of himself—that in his soul he might indeed find a “congress of souls” each vying for power, trying to dominate the others. But on Plato’s view (and many others) this would simply be emblematic of a sort of spiritual sickness. This is precisely how the soul is when it is not flourishing, i.e. the “civil war within the soul” of Plato’s Republic, or being “dead in sin” (i.e. a death of autonomy and an ability to do what one truly thinks is best) as described in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Romans 7).