Why is Wittgenstein's concept as the world consisting of "facts" not "things" so important. What do you think he means? Are Wittgenstein's "facts" the same as the "ideals" of idealism?

What is the difference between this logical atomism that Wittgenstein is proposing and the preceding Idealism movement?

I would like to jump into the reading group. About where is the group in terms of section in the text?

I have been a bit busy lately and have just now taken a look at the essay. Is there someone who can give me some background on the work: Why is it important? Who wrote it? Historical background? Philosophical background?

Thanks for your response. What "schools" are you referring to precisely?

Basically the Megarians here seem to not be differentiating essential and accidental qualities which Aristotle does later on.

I would say that the Megarians are right but ONLY with regard to essential qualities. Something cannot change its essential qualities or it would cease to be itself. What do you guys think?

As the MadFool articulated so well, the Megarians view seem to be somehow ignoring the obvious reality that a baby becomes an adult but a baby is not an adult.

Another option beyond sophistry (which MadFool mentioned as well) is that the Megarians were operating with a different ontological framework. It seems like their denial of change would result in a single-substance framework perhaps? Basically, if you wanted to believe that change didn't exist but a baby becomes an adult, you would have to say that a baby is an adult. And people dissintigrate eventually into the ground when they die, right? So the ground and the person would have to be equated as well.

This situation results in a single substance with infinite attributes (similar to Spinozian metaphysics, interestingly).

What's most fascinating to me is that, correct me if I am wrong, this is operating within a materialist framework, right (since he is a pre-socratic).

In my opinion, philosophy is necessary for essential human activities (establishing a government, raising children, education). And if we have to do it, we might as well do it well. But in terms of studying philosophy that in and of itself can mean very different things and I don't think is always to the benefit of society, especially when philosophy departments or programs become very radicalized and homogenous.

For example, whether you should not eat meat is a matter of personal belief. But what constitutes animal abuse is an entirely different question, and more of a societal question in our post-industrial commercial world. I really think that the accidental confluence of these two issues in this conversation is making the main points hard to follow.

Ok. So to a certain extent people's personal view about the justice of humans' relationship and treatment towards animals is subjective and can simply be left as such. But I think where this question becomes important is in terms of government and economics. For example, the desire for an increase in productivity etc. from business could cause large corporations to perhaps exploit animals, by prioritizing their economic productivity. And nothing is stopping them if there are no governmental restraints and within the governmental restraints has to be an ethical principle and within the ethical principle whose fundamental question is What are humans in relation to animals?

Hey Walter, great question. For me, I think the concept of "omniscience" itself can be put into question. Ok, let's break this down a bit. The basic idea is that "everything in existence" is the object of God's knowledge. But, in my mind, another factor involved in Divine Simplicity is that God constitutes the most fundamental reality and that his essence cannot involve negation.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I think that your question actually has more to do with the idea of Theistic determinism + plus the idea of free will in the shadow of human evil.

Because under the framework you created above, there is an inherent problem - that God is both entirely good and all-knowing. Does God necessarily as the "uncaused cause" of everything cause the evil actions of men? That cannot be. But neither does it seem possible that Evil should exist as an autonomous entity, powerfully independent from God.

I am interested to hear your response,

Sapere Aude

I would also be interested. Please keep me in on the loop.

Returning to the original conversation about the first mover, I would say that the purpose of this train of thought from Aristotle's Metaphysics is not to PROVE God exists, but to create a mental framework founded on the "first principle" or essentiallly a primary substance whose essence constitutes necessity itself for all other beings.

So the main question here is what precisely is the purpose of the "uncaused cause" argument? I don't think that it can prove the existence of a deity through logical necessity because we have no certainty that logical necessity can be trusted (as someone mentioned above the rejection of causation).

Any thoughts?

"For instance, truth and falsity, reason and emotion... are not true opposites." How are truth and falsity not opposites?

Here is a follow-up question: Can human relationships have ethical values? Are relationships necessary for achieving the ends of human life? Why?

What do you guys think of justice/injustice as operating beyond the human realm into the world of animals (and maybe plants?)

Here is another question: Is killing a fly a killing? Has an injustice been committed where the flyswatter slays its prey?

So the chief question here is whether man is essentially (ontologically/physically/other) superior to animals and only by acting according to his superiority could he be considered to not be committing injustice.

What elements of their epistemologies are you specifically referring to? I imagine perhaps you are trying the conceptualize Aristotle's and Plato's Metaphysical disagreements which manifest themselves in their epistemologies? I.E. The concept of Forms and the material.

So here is my perspective:

1. Plato's Forms as only true sources of knowledge:

Problem: Is there one form or an infinitive number? If there are indeed a discrete number of forms, why does not everything have a form (then the number of forms would be infinite). Do individuals not exist? If you "know" (through experience or other) an individual, do you not know the essence (form)?


2. Aristotle's material Individuals as constituting conceptual existence of philosophical objects

Problem: So, yes, physical sensation informs us of the material existence of an individual person or thing, but under these philosophical constraints we cannot know if this thing necessarily exists in any other sense than in which it exists for us (as Plato points out in his dialogue Theaetatus, I believe)

So, essentially, the main question is the classic One-Many argument AND how can we know? We can perceive by touching/experiencing things, but is this really a valid source of "knowleldge"? And just because I "see" something outside, does it mean that it necessarily must exist? - What if I am dreaming, etc.?

Hope this helps