I said this, particular argument, does not support your point. You claimed somehow the onus was on me to show that. It isn't. But neverhteless..

You then extended the charge to your entire post (which is silly, because I responded to other parts of it discreetly). I pointed out that I don't have to explain myself in pointing out your passage does not support your point. I see you to be now probably understand this could be the case, and want to know what you've missed. That's fair. But the onus isn't on me. I hope the below helps.. — AmadeusD

Here again, you fail to explain why the examples don't support my point, but just keep repeating yourself that it doesn't support, and the onus isn't on you. I only asked to explain, because you claimed that those examples don't support my point. I wouldn't have asked you to explain, if you hadn't made the claim. It was just the way of the interaction. I was not demanding impossible tasks from you.

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell. — AmadeusD

Here, your arguments are just repeated negations instead of arguing why the examples don't support my point. I am still not seeing your argument, why those examples are not the type of perception.

Further in support of why the above (your passage) might make sense, you're maintaining that because we have 'different types' of perception, that some are direct and some indirect. Unfortunately, this is really hard to respond to because it is, on it's face, ridiculous, and on inspection risible. Given that hte only example you have provided is obviously wrong, I don't think there's any space to push this back on me. There is a huge amount of work to be done, and I'm not seeing any of it. The distinction, theoretically, between IRists and DRists is clear, and not something that can be read-across by just assigning labels to things that don't come under those descriptions. — AmadeusD

I was not pushing the points to you, but just telling you my opinion on the IR DRists arguments, because from my point of view, there are different type of perceptual situations, objects, modes and the way perception works for us. It is pointless to stipulate that perception works only for one way i.e. either IR or DR, because it is not the case when one reflects on the workings and the various different types of objects in the world we perceive.

So, no you are still not even one step closer to offering me a worthwhile counter argument against my point. As before you just repeated the groundless negations on my point with the ad hominem. I thought there might be some interesting counter arguments from your end this time, but it didn't take me even a minute to find out it is not the case.

I am sorry if this comes off rude, but It feels like I have to explain this like you're a child (i really do not feel that you are, I just can't figure out what's being missed). — AmadeusD

Well, you are forgiven for going into Ad Hominem before even beginning your counter argument. I don't feel it is necessary in any decent philosophical discussions. Discussions can be undertaken without throwing yourself into the muddy dirt of getting into Ad Hominem, but some folks just can't help doing it as some sort of naughty juvenile habit.

I will go over your points, and will get back to them when I have some free time.

I really don't, though. You have an argument which, on my view, does not support your point. You're asking me to 'prove a negative' as it were. That wont be doable, even if you want it to be. — AmadeusD

What are they? Exactly where do you mean? The OP and many of my posts are exploratory on the topic i.e. trying to learn about the topic and concepts, not really claiming one particular point. But now you say my arguments don't support my point. What was my point, and which of my argument did not support the point? and Why?

The evidence of this is by your demonstration, differentiating between "God" and "the word God." So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring. — night912

There are many passages in the Bible suggesting the God is the word, which seem to be paralleling and echoing to my proof.

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

Revelation 19:16: The Word is named "King of kings and Lord of lords"

Psalm 19:14 NASB
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.

Hebrews 11:3
"God spoke the world into being by the power of His words"

I presume the OP is not talking about the Kantian transcendental law. Then transcendent law seems to imply the laws from Gods or divine law, which sounds ambiguous. Perhaps OP could give us clarification on the concept.

Define transcendent. In what sense are you using it in this discussion? What would be its complement? — Mww

:up:

The justification for a law is not to be conflated with the law itself. A transcendent law, as opposed to a transcendental law, is just making a Kantian distinction between laws which reside a priori and those which are about transcendent reality. — Bob Ross

I am not sure what you mean by a transcendent law. What do you mean by transcendent reality?

Eh, I don’t by that at all. There are, e.g., a priori laws of logic, natural laws (e.g., law of causality), etc. — Bob Ross

They are the products of the human reasoning.

So? There are people who don’t believe that germs exist: does that have any bearing on a scientific conversation on germ theory? — Bob Ross

They are the beliefs and facts. They are not laws. There seem to be a big confusion here.

Now, what these laws are, can only be conditionally mapped, or modeled, by a priori modes of cognizing reality (with mathematical equations and rules of logic being the most fundamental of them all); and so what exactly they are cannot be so described other than mathematically, logically, etc.

Thoughts? — Bob Ross

The wordings of the OP title "the existence of transcendent laws" sounds ambiguous and unintelligible.
All laws are from human reasoning be it induction or deduction. Some laws are from the cultural customs and ethical principles.

A priori is the way human reasoning functions and possibility of some abstract concepts. It is not about the laws. All laws are nonexistent until found by reasoning and established as laws. For the ancient folks with little or no scientific, philosophical and mathematical knowledge, everything was myth. There was no laws. Therefore there are no such things called "transcendent laws".

Well, Aristotle's notion of matter is much different from modern physics, and is perhaps more usefully likened to energy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Energy is from the motions or changes of matter e.g. flying baseball carries energy to break window when it hit the window, heat generates from burning woods etc. Matter has potential for being energy suppose.

But, the "void," space, does seem to "weigh." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I googled for how to weigh void or space, but they just listed weighing mass in space, rather than weighing the space itself. How do you weigh space? :)

Frank Wilzek's "The Lightness of Being," is a really great book on the properties of "empty space," and he makes the argument that theories of aether might be usefully employed for understanding this "metric field." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the info on the book. Will try to get the book.

This isn't my problem. If you utter something in defense of a position, and it does nothing for hte position, I have naught to do but point that out, if it is how I see it. — AmadeusD

I wasn't saying anything is problem. I was just suggesting if you say some point is wrong in philosophical discussion, you need to supply good arguments with reasoning and evidence supporting your disapproval. I didn't see much of that from your replies apart from just you think the point is wrong. Hence I cannot further continue my arguments against your disapproval.

Not a problem for me. My points in the thread are inspired by a textbook called "Phenomenology and Logic" by R. S. Tragesser.

The term'mystic' has been used to mean what is beyond our knowledge and understanding and also to mean what the mystic knows through transcendent experience,. I think Plato points to the former and provides a myth about the latter. — Fooloso4

ChatGPT seems to suggest that Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer were all inspired by Plato's theory of Forms and mysticism in their philosophical systems. For instance could Kant's Thing-in-itself and the transcendental philosophy be reflecting Plato's Form in some sense?

This is why Plato in the Timaeus says that matter and space are the same; for the 'participant' and space are identical. (It is true, indeed, that the account he gives there of the 'participant' is different from what he says in his so-called 'unwritten teaching'. Nevertheless, he did identify place and space.) I mention Plato because, while all hold place to be something, he alone tried to say what it is.* — Count Timothy von Icarus

An interesting point. But I am not sure if matter and space are the same. Matter can only exist in space. And mind can only exist in the biological body. Mind cannot exist in another mind. Human body cannot exist in another human body. Mind and body are totally different entity. Then matter and space must be different entity. If X exists in Y, then X and Y must be independent entities or existences.

Matter has mass and weight. Space doesn't seem to have them. So how can they be the same? Would you agree Aristotle was wrong on his claim in his Physics?

2. Free will is neither determined nor random
C. Free will does not exist. — Brendan Golledge

Free will is unknown, therefore Free will is unknown. (A tautology, but true statement.)

1. Everything in nature is either determined or random — Brendan Golledge

Some things in nature is unknown e.g. the origin of the universe. Therefore the premise is unsound.

It may appear as though the Timaeus is a departure for Plato, but it is consistent with Socratic skepticism. An indeterminate world, one where chance and contingency play a role, is a world that cannot be known. An indeterminate world of chance and contingency is one where the unknowable, the mystical dimension of life, is not flattened and destroyed. — Fooloso4

Consequently, even if knowledge of the Forms is possible it cannot give us knowledge of the sensible world. — Fooloso4

So it sounds like Plato had the sceptic and mystic elements in his thoughts on the world, human life and the gods.

I have. I started a thread on it here. — Fooloso4

A great thread. Thanks for the link. The OP offers an interesting classic material for read.

Paine pointed to Plotinus. They are mystic philosophers. — Fooloso4

A helpful starting point is how Plotinus talked about memory. — Paine

:up: :ok:

Plotinus spoke of having the experience of being present to the source from which our souls descended. The move is accompanied by a cosmogony where the veil between our lives and the "eternal" is very thin.

Plato did not describe the limits of knowledge that way. Neither did Aristotle. — Paine

Need more elaboration with the reference on this point.

I should have asked who they are. I don't think there is anywhere in the dialogues that Socrates makes any claim about the gods. He does, however, refer to common beliefs about the gods. — Fooloso4

Have you read the other Plato such as Timaeus? It is filled with cosmogony and the Gods.

Don't those you just listed believe in a transcendent realm that can be known directly? Isn't that a feature of mysticism? — Fooloso4

Of course they do, but what I meant was the others from the philosophers, not from the mystics.

You're arguing that God is the word God and not the word God, which is a contradiction. — night912

You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.

God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.

I don't think so. Knowledge of the Forms is a matter of direct, unmediated apprehension. From and earlier post: — Fooloso4

Whose direct, unmediated apprehension? Are we able to apprehend them via direct unmediated apprehension, or the Gods?

If we can apprehend them, then it seems to be a bridgeable gap between the world of the Forms and the world of materials. Why was your reply a negative?

The Forms are hypotheticals. — Fooloso4

In what sense? Is it what Plato said?

if the gods are noble and good then we are wise to know that we do not know anything about them. — Fooloso4

We don't know if the gods are noble and good. That is what Socrates said maybe, but does he give the reasons and proofs why the gods are noble and good?

On whose part? On my reading the transcendent realm of Forms from the Republic is Plato's philosophic poetry. An image to compel the lover of wisdom to continue to journey. — Fooloso4

The transcendent realm of Forms from the Republic were the founding principles of the later occultism, Gnosticism, mysticism, and the Hermetic Kabbalists in the medieval times. There seems to be far more implications to the concept than just a philosophical poetry.

Others believe it exists and that there are some who have direct knowledge of it. — Fooloso4

Who are the "Others"? Any verification details on their beliefs of the existence via their direct knowledge?

Knowledge of a reality that transcends our everyday reality. In line with the Republic it would be knowledge of the Forms. — Fooloso4

Is the gap between the knowledge of the Forms and everyday life bridgeable by any actions or methods? Or are they two distinct entities which are inaccessible to each other?

In Plato's Apology Socrates makes a distinction between human wisdom, which is knowledge of our ignorance, and divine wisdom. Socrates says he knows nothing noble and good, (21d) It is reserved for the gods because they know such things and we don't. — Fooloso4

So it seems clear that they are claiming the existence of the gods, and the knowledge of the gods. But do they try to verify them via reasoning and logic? or do they keep silence on the presumed and presupposed divine existence?

Whatever the case, doesn't it sound like some sort of mysticism going on here? The world of idea which is different from the world of everyday life, possibility of the transition of souls into the world of idea after death, and the existence of divine knowledge that they admit, but don't know what they are ...etc sound like a form of mysticism.

On my reading the philosopher does not possess such knowledge. It is reserved for the gods. — Fooloso4

What do you mean by "such knowledge"? Why is it reserved for the gods? Which gods do you mean here?

Since subjectivity exists in human minds, not in the objective universe, "proving" subjective entities "exist" is possible, yet meaningless. I'm convinced beauty exists, so does my neighbor, BUT what I find beautiful is totally different from what he does. We're both "right", yet being so correct doesn't further anyone's understanding of anything. It's just a word game, leading nowhere. — LuckyR

But from non religious philosophical point of view on religion, we could still study the different religions on their definition of Gods, principles, the religious claims etc from the academic angle investigating logically and metaphysically. It is the oldest human mental and metaphysical tradition and phenomenon.

To say that God is a subjective entity, impossible to prove, therefore meaningless sounds meaningless and shallow thinking.

From a functional standpoint god definitions are essentially subjective, since each religion, and each worshipper within the religion, gets to decide what THEIR god means to them, essentially their "definition" of god, that you are focused upon. Just as we all decide what we find beautiful, we all get to decide what our god is or isn't like. — LuckyR

This is not making sense either. Religion is not something that you take up, and fantasise about the God. If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God. Having done all that, you wouldn't be going out comparing your God with the other religious Gods criticising, judging or doubting them.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR

Your claim here is ambiguous. You seem to be saying if something was invented by humans recently, then it is not something. Is it correct? Could you justify your premise and argument? It seems unsound and not even valid, and is discarded as nonsense.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent.

My avatar agrees. — Pantagruel

I didn't know it was Descartes. I used to think it was some bloke on a bank note of some country. It seems then, images alone cannot become knowledge. Image needs the corresponding ideas or concepts to be qualified as knowledge.

When ideas and concepts alone are perceived, it is also not clear knowledge. The supplementary images for the idea or concept would help for forming more realistic knowledge.

Even then, after knowing the bloke in the avatar is Descartes, I don't know much about the real Descartes. It will be a gradual process to have more degree of real knowledge about him, if I keep reading on Descartes through time.

It was a possible scenario post when you chose the definition of God with omnipotence. It was not my own definition of God. Remember my definition of God was God in the word God? You seem to be too prejudging without knowing what is going on in the posts.

You still have not given out what your definition of God is.

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.

There's also a pragmatic problem with your first premise: in deductive logic, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Your premise implies conclusions are not necessarily true, because there's always a background contingency on God's will. This invalidates the use of deductive logic - so the argument is self-defeating. — Relativist

You were quite correct to point out the unsound premise, and rejected it. Even if the argument was valid, it is unsound. The conclusion is self-defeating therefore is a nonsense.

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

Cogito

With regard to mysticism - there is a lot of different stuff called mysticism. If we regard mysticism as the experience of a reality that transcends our everyday reality, that is something I know nothing about. — Fooloso4

Mysticism is about the hidden knowledge. In Plato, truth is supposed to be hidden until it is disclosed (alethia). Does it mean truth is mysticism in Plato?

This argument just comes down to our definition of real. This definition of real is that anything that exists is real. Both fake and real are real because they exist. — Hyper

When you are using the definition of real as existing, you must supply what is real after the real.
For example, "Socrates was a real person." This sounds right.

It sounds ambiguous, contradictory and illogical to say, Socrates was real, or fake is real.

Thus the majority of gods are not omnipotent. — LuckyR

Why is it the case? How potent are they? or are they potent at all?

Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form. — Relativist

The point was just to demonstrate how the valid logical arguments can have unsound conclusion, and not useful in practicality.

Validity in logic doesn't mean much apart from the fact that it proves the conclusion was followed from the premises, be it sound or unsound.

I think this is entirely not supporting your point. Which I do get. — AmadeusD

Again, your replies are just your personal claims saying my points are wrong, or you think it is not supporting my points. I am not seeing any philosophical arguments why my points are wrong and why not supported.

You need to give out your counter arguments on my points with some reasoning and evidence with your claims. If not, I cannot accept your claims as legitimate philosophical arguments.

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid. — Relativist

If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth.

It may not be a true argument, but it certainly looks valid.