By a semi-idealist reasoning, there's an "abstract cow" that somehow exists "objectively" and independently of all else, sort of in it's own ("timeless") realm of reified abstracts. — jorndoe

Can you provide the reason as to why that is? I think the reason is that if all particular cows in the world were to disappear today, there would still remain the abstract cow in our minds; and therefore the abstract cow is independent of the particular cows in the world. But this argument is refuted by Aristotle who states that although the idea remains in our mind, it was originally abstracted from the particular cows. In other words, if no particular cows existed in the first place, then we would never have conceived the idea of abstract cow, and therefore the abstract cow originated from the particulars. I think this is also what @Wayfarer was explaining in his first post above. Therefore the "realm of reified abstracts" is an unnecessary hypothesis.

If god* exists, he must be infinitely better than us. — heraclitus

This is not how we should see God. Rather than saying God is infinitely good, it is more accurate to say He is 100% good. As for us, we are somewhere between 0% and 100% (let's call that value x). Just as the reach from x to 100% is not infinite, so our language of the moral good is not meaningless. The same applies when it comes to acquiring truth.

To paraphrase a philosopher (I think C.S. Lewis but not certain), if our goodness and wisdom is like the attempt of a child to hand draw a circle, then the goodness and wisdom of God is like a perfect circle, and not a complex shape that is unimaginable to the child.

This is odd because I agree with the logic of your argument, just not in the conclusion that free will does not exist. Yes we have free will, no we are not free to choose to have free will or not. Much like a free man is free to do a lot of things but not free to tie his own hands. It follows that our free will is limited, not that it does not exist.

But all believers of free will are aware of this: No one is free to come into existence, no one is free from the laws of logic, or even the laws of physics, and no one with free will is free from free will.

So, for example, the positive feeling that a junky might have when s/he finds some drugs would reflect the positive meaning of what? — jkop

Good point. You are a step ahead. We need to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate emotional feelings. A feeling is legit if it truly reflects the nature of the event, both in direction and magnitude. If not, then it is illegit. A junky or addict has an illegit pleasure towards its drugs, hence the addiction. But a strong feeling of fear towards encountering a tiger would be a legit feeling, because the event is strongly negative (you could die) and the feeling is equally negative.

Why must it be positive? — jkop

I meant 'must' in the sense of 'may', or 'is an indication'. But it presupposes that the feeling is legitimate, which is indeed not always the case.

And whence the assumption that emotions would have a purpose? — jkop

Every part of the human body has a purpose. Legs to move, hands to grab, nails to scratch, eyes to see, hair to protect our skin from the sun, sweat to cool down etc. Even physical feelings have a purpose: to reflect the health state of the body. Hence when the body is damaged, we feel physical pain. When the body's needs are fulfilled (e.g. drinking when thirsty) then we feel physical pleasure. If all other parts have a purpose, then emotions too must have a purpose.

The emotion is the feeling. — jkop

Typo. I meant "If the feeling is negative, then it is an indication that the event must have been negative". I have corrected the original post. Thanks.

Hello. I wrote a short document about emotions a while back.
Emotional Feeling: An effect an individual experiences, which results from experiencing an "Event" (an experience directly perceived by the individual). Emotional feelings have two properties like a vector:
1. A direction: positive called pleasure, and negative called pain.
2. A magnitude or intensity or degree: a strong versus weak emotional response.

Much like you can learn about a cause from its effect, the purpose of emotional feelings is to reflect the meaning of the event that triggered it. If the feeling is positive, then it is an indication that the event must have been positive. If the feeling is negative, then it is an indication that the event must have been negative.

The Greatest Commandment(s) in Christianity. Matthew 22:35-40:
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[as @Wosret pointed out earlier]. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This indeed could be the case for life (at least simple life). Regarding the claim that 'everything is material', what about non-material things like the moral law or law of logic? Surely these exist and are neither matter nor energy.

A good point. There is a misunderstanding in the word 'material'. I use the term in the general sense that includes not only matter but also energy, processes, and in short anything that can be observable or empirical. Thus the processes you speak of fit into the category of material things that give life, labelled as Y. If these processes can be restored, then we could logically (in theory) restore Y to X and thus revive a dead cow.

To bring you up to speed, some people did not disagree with the X+Y reasoning, but only in the claim that it seems absurd. Thus they believe that life Y is a material thing, and that, indeed, we could logically restore life into a dead cow given sufficient technology.

Wait, everybody has to agree with it? Don't remember that being a requirement. I have personally found some math problems to be cute, and I can find an exception to the hamster thing as well, even if I'm not that exception. — noAxioms

Not 100% has to agree with it, for I am sure there exists outliers, but they would be just that: outliers. The requirement can be called 'common sense', 'every day language', or 'right opinion'. Exceptions, by definition, would fall into outliers.

The way the word is used in common language is of no use when trying to decide if something new is life or not. — noAxioms

If not that, then what else could be used as the foundation to determine if something new is life or not? A majority rule on arbitrary opinions? I am hoping for something objective.

So what is the essence of 'essence'? — noAxioms

Essence or essential properties: properties critical to the meaning of a term, such that if they were to be removed, then the term would lose its original meaning. Example: essential properties of a triangle: 'flat surface' + '3 sides'. If the surface is not flat, it is not a triangle. If the surface does not have 3 sides, it is not a triangle. Conversely, 'red' is not an essential property, because a red triangle remains a triangle if the redness is removed.

What doesn't have essence? — noAxioms

I am not certain, but I think not every term has an essence. It appears to be the case for slang words such as "it sucks" or "he is a jerk". We can test the term by attempting to find a particular that fits into the category of the term that everyone agrees with, and another particular that fits outside the category.

You just seems to be asserting that every adjective or noun in the language has an essence, and the proof you give is needless given that assertion. — noAxioms

Why? The proof would be needless if no one questioned that essences exist, or if it was self-evident; but that is not the case.

Let me try this logic out. Suppose I try to nail down the essence of 'cute'. I pick an arbitrary way to sort things into two heaps: A thing is cute if it masses more than a KG. So I am cute, but this pebble is not. There is at least one thing in each heap, therefore there must be an essence of cute. Somehow the proof seems invalid. — noAxioms

Indeed your proof is invalid because it is not commonsensical to label you as cute and to label the pebble as not. It would only be valid, and thus match my argument, if you found a particular that fits into the category 'cute' that everyone (or close to) agrees with, and found for another particular that fits outside of the category of 'cute' that everyone agrees with.

Better example: A hamster is cute. A math exam is not. Therefore the essence of 'cute' exists.

I think the golden rule applies to all groups: individuals, companies, states, etc.
Of course, the complexity is increased when more members are involved, and so this makes its application challenging, but not impossible. When it comes to conflicts between states, the Just War Theory applies, which is an adaptation of the golden rule specific to wars. It is summarized as such:
- Just cause: Reason to go to war must be justified.
- Competent authority: The government must know the facts correctly.
- Right intention: The goal is to restore peace in the long run.
- Last resort: All alternative peaceful measures to prevent the war have been exhausted.
- Proportionality: The war-option may not cause more evil than the no-war option.

This is the theory. In practice, I am sure there can be really sticky situations like being an honest german soldier during the nazi regime; in which case the 'right thing to do that will result in a successful outcome' is not easy to find.

There are those that have argued on these forums that rocks are an example of life, or that dogs are not. — noAxioms

I am amazed. Only philosophers could come up with such conclusions.

I may not agree with these positions, but I have no rule which I can apply to prove either of them wrong. — noAxioms

A fair point. It is tough to explain but here goes. I invoke Aristotle's theory of abstraction: We all have in ourselves the implicit knowledge of terms such as 'living' and 'non-living'. This is so by our years of sense observation of the world. This implicit knowledge is what enables us to use the terms correctly in everyday language, even if we don't have the explicit definition of all the terms used. Thus a 10-year old can have a meaningful conversation without ever having read a dictionary. Finding the essence of terms is simply acquiring explicit knowledge based on our implicit knowledge. I think our implicit knowledge that a dog is living and a rock is non-living is pretty grounded.

How does this arbitrary selection provide evidence that there is an actual essence of 'bald'? — noAxioms

It doesn't in any direct way. We got side tracked by you claiming that the essence of A and B must exist for the law of non-contradiction to be applicable. I refute this by claiming that we only need consistency and not essence for it. If we agree to this, then my first premise in the argument to prove that essences exist stands: "Either a being is a living being or a non-living being. It cannot be both."

How so? — noAxioms

Maybe "circular" was the wrong word; my bad. Nevertheless, it sounds like you demand to know X in order to prove X using the law of non-contradiction. But if X is known, then it must have already been proven. A valid proof implies a logical proof. A logical proof implies that is passes the law of non-contradiction.

I too like to think that the (modern) man-made laws of justice are based on the natural laws of objective justice. Also when in doubt for a particular act, there is always the good old golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you.

I think you are saying that might makes these acts legal, authorizes them, calls them good, and gets away with them. To this, I agree. But I think "might makes right" translates to "might makes an act objectively just", and to that, I disagree. We can determinate the justice of an act by testing if it passes or fails the golden rule: Do onto others as you want them to do onto you.
- Nazis exterminating the Jews, Gypsies, Jehovahs Witnesses, homosexuals, Slavs, criminals: fail.
- Apartheid regime of South Africa, even if the white rulers of South Africa thought it was appropriate: fail.
- Armenian genocide: I am guessing fail. I don't know much about this one.
- Israelis feel imminently justified in the establishment of Israel: maybe, this is a matter of facts I think.
- The United States exterminating Indians: fail, unless they attempted every other possible ways to make peace, which I doubt.

"I am bald" and "I am not bald" can both be true since there is no agreed upon theory of bald. — noAxioms

I disagree. The only criteria is consistency in A and consistency in B in the law of non-contradiction. You don't need to find the real essence of "bald" but merely need a consistent definition, such as "no hair anywhere on the head". In this case, "I am bald" and "I am not bald" are mutually exclusive. Therefore only consistency and not the essence in the terms is needed to apply the law of non-contradiction.

the logic made no statement that all countries occupy disjoint geographical regions (and there are indeed counter examples), so no conclusion about their separation can be drawn at all. — noAxioms

I used the word 'separation' loosely. The separation can be disjoint and yet still a separation.

If no absolute criteria is known (fuzzy fact), then you can't invoke the law of contradiction to prove that there is in fact an absolute criteria. — noAxioms

Your statement is circular.

Why is it important? — noAxioms

Are you asking why finding the essence of life is important? I personally find the topic interesting; that is why I am here. Why are you here if you don't find the topic important?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are now arguing for "right judges might" instead of "might makes right", as seen in the following quotes. Am I correct?

the unfairness of its laws

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

a state sweltering with the heat of injustice

Slavery is just if the slave society defines it as just. Apartheid is just if the apartheid regime says it is just. And they did. — Bitter Crank

In which case, was it a just act for the nazis to kill the jews in Germany under the nazi regime?

What changed the "justice" of slavery and apartheid in slave and apartheid regimes was either overwhelming opposition to slavery and apartheid in other regimes, expressed through legislation, trade embargoes, or armed resistance. — Bitter Crank

And why were the other regimes and armed resistance in opposition to slavery and apartheid, if not because they thought that these laws were unjust? If so, then right judges might, or a priori justice determines if the laws are just or not.

Law of non-contradiction does not hold without a hard definition of the essence, so invoking the law presupposes the conclusion that there is such an essence. Dr Cleland brings the subject up using 'bald' as the example. — noAxioms

I honestly find it hard to believe that the law of non-contradiction, typically seen as the first principal in metaphysics, is itself dependant on the existence of essence of things. In fact, the strength (or weakness depending on the case) of pure logic is that it contains no substance, only variables (A, B, X, Y, ...). Furthermore, it seems like an easy cop out for someone to dismiss a logical argument simply on the grounds that he does not believe in the essence of the terms used. Could you unpack this 'bald' example if possible?

Yes, one could arbitrarily make up such a rule, and then be able to classify anything as life or not-life, but what has that proven? That is not the essence of life, it is just an arbitrary rule that sorts things into two buckets. It does not prove the existence of an essence. — noAxioms

I think it still does due to premise 2. Here is an analogy: We know country X exists because we know someone from country X. We also know country Y exists because we know someone from country Y. This is enough to deduce that a separation or border exists between countries X and Y.

This is true, but the laws themselves are based on justice and not the opposite way around, aren't they? When the laws allowed for slavery and apartheid, they were unjust laws. Therefore right makes might. Otherwise, the phrase "unjust law" is logically meaningless.

Your concern about dealing with a-holes is noted. I will give you my full position on this: The golden rule is an absolute in morality, and is an effective tool in conflicts, even with a-holes. There is always a way to deal with any situations without breaking the golden rule, even if the solution is not always easy to find. I will try to explain how it is so.

Let's unpack the rule: It is not synonymous to being an extreme pacifist or a push-over. It simply answers "yes" to the question "Would I like a similar treatment under a similar situation?". Thus a-holes can be penalized, but justly, not by being a-holes back at them. Example: You murder my wife. I could murder your wife in return, but this would be responding to an unjust act with an unjust act. Instead, I will catch you and put you in jail for a long time. This does not break the golden rule because out of justice, I would like to be treated the same way if I murdered someone.

Golder rule of ethics: Do onto others as you want them to do onto you. I don't want to be killed, so killing others is unethical.

I am not an atheist so I can only speculate, but I would assume that not all atheists are pro-choice.

Does might make right? It depends if you are asking with respect to description or prescription. A descriptive statement is simply saying what is, making a mere observation. A prescriptive statement is saying what ought to be.

Machiavellianism is correct as a description of human history, as you pointed out; but it is wrong as a prescription for moral behaviour, because it violates the golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you.

Premise 1 is not based on the conclusion, but on the law of non-contradiction: the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. This is known with certainty even if we don't know what A and B mean.

I picked two easy ones on purpose, to show that there exists data on both sides. Your comment again misses the point of my argument that claims that the essence exists, not that it is easily found. I agree that it is hard to label things like viruses, but that is because the essence has not been found yet, not because it does not exist. And the essence must be clear because of premise 1.

Cannot agree with it. The line is fuzzy, so something can be questionably on either side. — noAxioms

A thing can be on either side but not both at once. If p is true, then not-p is false, and vice-versa. This applies to all p, including the term "living" even if we have not found the essence yet. This means that the line separating the living and non-living things must a clear one.

Don't understand this one. A rock is not a dead dog, and would a dog not qualify as life if I could not produce a dead one?
If you mean a dog is living compared to the rock, the label seems to have already been applied for the rule to have meaning, so it does not help narrow the essence you seek. — noAxioms

I mean that a dog is clearly labelled as a living thing, and a rock is clearly labelled as a non-living thing. You misunderstand the point. It is that there are things that fit in each label.

For any rule, it seems to take little effort to conceive of an exception. The conclusion seems to be a theory that avoids strict rules. — noAxioms

What do you mean by rule? Essential properties? Can you prove that for any rule there is an exception? That statement seems to be a self-contradiction. Anyways, my argument proves that the essence exist, it does not attempt to find it.

I think that definition of "cell" is outdated, and maybe based in misunderstanding. Isn't there many smaller active units within the cell? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is possibly an old definition. At any rate, it is the simplest thing that I know to be living with certainty, and so it is a starting point in the discussion. As we get closer to the essence, maybe the title of the simplest living thing will shift.

Fire seems not to meet the last one. — noAxioms

Yeah I admit I don't understand what the term "semiosis" means (process that involves signs?).

I have bailed on attempting to define an essence, and leave it a call to be made on a case-by-case basis. — noAxioms

This may be the end result. But at least I think I can prove that the essence of life exists:
- Either a being is a living being or a non-living being. It cannot be both.
- There exists an instance where a being is clearly labelled as living and another instance where a being is clearly labelled non-living: e.g. a dog and a rock.
- Therefore a separation/border exists between the two labels, which is the essence. Its location may not be clear, but it must exist.

Why do you think that a cell is the simplest possible living thing? — Metaphysician Undercover

By the definition of the term itself: the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. With this definition, if we were to ever find simpler organisms than our currently known cells, then these would also be called cells I think.

Why would you think that a fire metabolizes? Metabolism is clearly defined as what living things do. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah I agree. As such, metabolism should be excluded from the essence of living things because it presupposes it. We can replace it instead with "interaction with environment, either input or output".

Well, of course Platonism implies Platonism.
It looks like the term "eternal" is hitching a ride with propositional consistency here, though. — jorndoe

You are free to remove the first term "eternal". But without it, the statement is either implied to be eternally true, or not. If eternally true, then no change to the original statement. If not eternally true, then there are some instances when the statement is not true, but that is illogical: the statement "nothing is eternally true" is sometimes not true.

Note, it is possible that I misunderstood your point. If so, just ignore this comment.

I apologize if this was already brought up before. I want to bring up one more essential property of all living things: The ability to attempt to be self-sustainable, that is, to keep their parts functioning properly. Not all living things achieve this, but they can all attempt to. This now differentiates living things from mere physical reactions: a tree will attempt to extend its roots and lean in a certain direction to find more energy, where as a fire will not attempt any of this and is merely acting upon the laws of physics. Similarly, a car engine has functioning parts, but none are aimed at being self-sustainable. Even a newborn baby will cry for the aim at improving its health state.

All the properties mentioned previously (needs energy, can grow, can reproduce, adaptability, ...) are all means to the end of self-sustainability. None of these means appear to be essential because one mean may work for one thing but not another (at least in theory).

On an unrelated note, this marks my 100th comment. I am treating myself to a cookie.

Does (abstract propositional) consistency itself exist apart from all else, is it a constraint on our thinking, or something else...? — jorndoe

Here is my take on this. Abstract concepts such as laws of logic and formulas exist in themselves and are eternal: 1+1 does not cease to equal 2 just because there are no concrete things to apply it to. But this is not the case for Platonic Forms of concrete things such as "triangle-ness" and "tree-ness": a tree does not retain its tree-ness once you remove all the matter from it. I think this is also Aristotle's position.

generally, it is the condition extending from cell division to death — Galuchat

Welcome. I agree that things made of cells are living things. But why is that the case? What makes a cell a living thing, and anything simpler than a cell a non-living thing (I assume you agree with the latter phrase too)?

characterised by the ability to metabolise nutrients, respond to stimuli, mature, reproduce, and adapt to the environment through semiosis. — Galuchat

This may answer my previous question. But would that not make a fire a living thing much like a cell? Note, this seems to be the position of some people in this discussion. I am on the edge on that one; and yet I cannot seem to find a clear difference between a cell and a fire.

doesn't that make the kalam/cosmological argument into an argument for Platonism instead, sort of...? — jorndoe

Yes, it does in the sense that some concepts must be eternal. To think otherwise yields to a self-contradiction: One thing is eternally true, that nothing is eternally true.

Suppose x is (defined as) atemporal, "outside of time". Then there can be no time at which x exists. And x cannot change, or be subject to change, but would be inert. Interaction with x could not occur. — jorndoe

I agree that x could not change, but why could x not change other things, that is, act as their cause? E.g. the eternal law of logic is one of the causes to me thinking logically. The Formal Cause is one of Aristotle's four causes of things.

I see what you are saying now. Laws of physics are statements and math formulas that predict the behaviour of objects. These objects are compelled to forces, such as gravity, but not laws, such as the laws of gravity. Therefore mindless objects indeed don't "follow laws" in the sense that they are caused or motivated by them to behave in their predictive ways.

With this clarification, it seems there is not much in common between human laws and laws of physics. The two types of "laws" have completely difference essences.

The only problem with that change of premise (if it's true) is that you can't argue from me being aware of things having a cause of its coming to be, to there being a God. — Purple Pond

I think you can. Sure, your awareness is not the cause of the existence of God, but it means that we can deduce the existence of God from our awareness that all temporary things have a cause. In other words, we can reason backwards, from observation to effect to cause, even though in reality things occur from cause to effect to our observations. When Descartes says "I think therefore I am", he does not mean that his thinking is the cause of his existence, but that his existence is necessary for him to think.

I am not sure I understand your argument against the phrase "begins to exist". Even though the exact moment for the beginning of your existence is not clear, we can definitely deduce a beginning:
You exist today, and you did not exist 100 years ago; therefore your existence has a beginning.

I think I can clarify this. Instead of saying "whatever begins to exist has a cause", we can say "all that is not eternal has a cause". As you point out, "causation has a cause" is nonsensical. It follows that causation does not have a cause, and therefore causation is eternal. Does that sound surprising? Not so; it is part of what is called "eternal truths". Such eternal truths include:
- laws of logic: if p is true, then not p is false,
- laws of mathematics: 2+2=4
- laws of morality: charity is good, killing is bad. (Though this one is controversial).

Doesn't it require a mind to follow rules — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if the rule is only influencing and not compelling. If a rule is only influencing, then following it is a voluntary act of the mind. But if compelling, then the object does not need to have a mind. We are influenced by man-made laws, and it is our voluntary choice to follow them or break them. On the other hand, our bodies (and all mindless objects with a mass) "follow" the laws of gravity because they are compelling laws, and we cannot help but fall from the sky to the ground. All laws of physics are compelling laws.