Comments

  • Is the real world fair and just?
    How does reading off a number make a difference to what the dial has recorded? Be as precise as you like.apokrisis

    'The dial' or any instrument is an extension of the human ability to perceive the object. I know that the question of 'what is an observer' is a vexed question, as Robert Lawrence Kuhn has a whole playlist on it. And sure, we create the most exquisitely powerful instruments to make those observations. But the observer still has a fundamental role.

    The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers.

    Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe.

    So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'.
    — Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Liz Cheney said on Tuesday that Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) would help former President Trump “illegally seize power” if they were elected on the GOP ticket in November.

    Cheney, pointing to previous statements from Vance, drew a stark contrast between the freshman Ohio senator and Trump’s first-term vice president, Mike Pence — whose refusal to abide Trump’s request to reject certified electoral votes from certain states that voted for President Biden turned him into a pariah in many GOP circles.

    “JD Vance has pledged he would do what Mike Pence wouldn’t – overturn an election and illegally seize power,” Cheney said on the social platform X. “He says the president can ignore the rulings of our courts. He would capitulate to Russia and sacrifice the freedom of our allies in Ukraine.”

    “The Trump GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln, Reagan or the Constitution,” she added.
    The Hill
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    If you can't figure out where to place the epistemic cut, then sure, you wind up trying to put it in the "mind" of the individual scientist making the measurement rather than where it should be, which is out in the instruments designed to produce the mechanical click of a yes or no, an on or an off, an up or a down, etc.apokrisis

    But instruments don't make measurements - or rather, whether they do or not relies on the measurement being observed. And that Wheeler article discusses the implications of his 'delayed choice' experiment, conducted on a cosmic scale, whereby observations taken on earth appear to have a role in determining the path of a photon that has already travelled millions of light years.

    I listened to an interesting dialogue between Kurt Jaimungul and Amanda Gefter exploring Wheeler's concept of the participatory universe, where reality is co-created through measurement, involving both the observer and the observed. This idea is illustrated through an anecdote Wheeler often shared. He describes a game of 20 questions he participates in at a dinner party. The game traditionally involves one person leaving the room while the others choose a word. When the person returns, they ask up to 20 yes-or-no questions to guess the word. However, in this instance, Wheeler is unaware of a twist in the game. When he left the room, the group decided not to choose a specific word. Instead, they agreed to answer his questions on the fly, ensuring only that their answers were consistent with all previous responses.

    As Wheeler began asking his questions, the answers were initially straightforward but became progressively slower, indicating the group's effort to maintain internal consistency. For example, he asked if the word was an animal (answer: no), if it was green (answer: no), and if it was white (answer: yes). Eventually, Wheeler guessed that the word was "cloud," and the group burst out laughing, affirming his guess.

    The significance of this allegory lies in the fact that the word "cloud" was not predetermined. The word emerged through the interaction between Wheeler's questions and the group's answers. This scenario demonstrates Wheeler's idea of a participatory universe in quantum mechanics. In this context, reality is not fixed but is created through the process of measurement. The answers provided by the group were influenced by Wheeler's questions, just as measurements in quantum mechanics are influenced by the observer.

    This participatory nature of reality is also a central theme in QBism (Quantum Bayesianism), an interpretation of quantum mechanics. QBism suggests that the act of measurement involves the observer updating their beliefs or probabilities based on the outcome. In the same way that the word "cloud" emerged from the interplay of questions and answers, the reality in quantum mechanics is co-created by the observer and the observed. But it calls into question the intuitive belief that the world really is a certain way prior to it being observed. The way it is comes into being through the observing of it.

    Andrei Linde often argues along similar lines.
  • Is the real world fair and just?
    Peirce defined vagueness as that to which the principle of non-contradiction fails to applyapokrisis

    Right. You see that echoed in the measurement problem and the ambiguous nature of sub-atomic particles....

    reality is always something being produced by the "monism" of a triadic relation.apokrisis

    ...which likewise bears resemblance to Wheeler's 'participatory universe' idea (see Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?)

    Today it would be general relativity and quantum field theory.apokrisis

    But isn't the problem that these can't be reconciled with gravity? That this is the major obstacle to a GUT?

    You mention 'top down constraints' - but what is the ultimate source of those constraints? Can they be traced back to Lloyd Rees' 'six numbers'? Because that has a satisfyingly Platonist ring to it, in my view.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I think you're right. It seems this shooter really was a loner with no manifesto or political activity or affiliations.

    Yes, I took that onboard. I'm still hoping the Newsom-Whitmer team walks out on stage at the Convention as the eventual nominees. If it's Biden, I'm very afraid.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6d9e121a-b493-4305-8016-f43fb381552f
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    Hersh asks right upfront: 'in what sense do mathematical objects exist?' That was the question that hooked me on the subject, and I see it as a philosophical, not mathematical question.
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    So you don't accept that 7=7?

    apropos of this general discussion, I've just downloaded a rather interesting textbook, What is Mathematics, Really? Reuben Hersh, 1999. Quite approachable.
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    Thanks! Coming from you, that is high praise.
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    Broadly speaking, Mathematical Platonism (deriving from Plato’s broader theory of ‘forms’) is an ontology of mathematics according to which mathematical objects are abstract, timeless entities existing objectively independent of the circumstances of the physical universe in a separate, abstract realm.

    I will take issue with this. I say that in this standard formulation, the phrase 'timeless entities existing objectively' is wrong, because it is a reification. To reify is to 'make into a thing'. Numbers don't exist as objects, except for in the metaphorical sense of 'objects of thought'. As soon as this 'ethereal realm of separately existing things' is posited, this reification occurs. To understand why, review Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition, Eric D Perl, Chapter Two, Plato, particularly S3, The Meaning of Separation, from which:

    Forms...are radically distinct, and in that sense ‘apart,’ in that they are not themselves sensible things. With our eyes we can see large
    things, but not largeness itself; healthy things, but not health itself. The latter, in each case, is an idea, an intelligible content, something to be apprehended by thought rather than sense, a ‘look’ not for the eyes but for the mind. This is precisely the point Plato is making when he characterizes forms as the reality of all things. “Have you ever seen any of these with your eyes?—In no way … Or by any other sense, through the body, have you grasped them? I am speaking about all things such as largeness, health, strength, and, in one word, the reality [οὐσίας] of all other things, what each thing is” (Phd. 65d4–e1). Is there such a thing as health? Of course
    there is. Can you see it? Of course not. This does not mean that the forms are occult entities floating ‘somewhere else’ in ‘another world,’ a ‘Platonic
    heaven.’ It simply says that the intelligible identities which are the reality, the whatness, of things are not themselves physical things to be perceived
    by the senses, but must be grasped by thought. If, taking any of these examples—say, justice, health, or strength—we ask, “How big is it? What
    color is it? How much does it weigh?”we are obviously asking the wrong kind of question. Forms are ideas, not in the sense of concepts or abstractions, but in that they are realities apprehended by thought rather than by sense.

    Much the same can be said of number, which is why they're not 'objective', but 'transjective' (a newly-coined word meaning 'Transcending the distinction between subjective and objective, or referring to a property not of the subject or the environment but a relatedness co-created between them'.)
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    Sometimes, I don't really get it, or not immediately. At that point, I know that I am close to understanding something that is even worse than all the bad stuff that I have come across already.

    I cannot stop because I like too much playing with metaphysical fire. If you have the sensation that you are about to discover the true secret name of Satan, would you stop or would you keep going?
    Tarskian

    I hardly understand anything in this thread, as my knowledge of mathematics is rudimentary. But my view of the metaphysics is much more benign, as I'm attracted to mathematical Platonism. My view is that numbers are real, but not physically existent. If you point to a number, '7', what you're indicating is a symbol, whereas the number itself is an intellectual act. And furthermore, it is an intellectual act which is the same for all who can count. It's a very simple point, but I think it has profound implications.

    There was an article in Smithosonian Magazine called What is Math? which considered this question, with the Platonist view being represented by an emeritus professor, James Robert Brown. After reading that article, I bought his book, although I must confess most of it was also beyond me, but I'm intuitively convinced that the platonist view is correct, and that it's resisted because it challenges materialism and empiricism, as some of those quoted in the Smithsonian article attest.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    No last year I was doubting Trump would be nominee. Doubts about Biden’s nomination only came into view this year.
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    All well beyond my competence I’m afraid. I have a vague recollection of a BBC documentary, Dangerous Knowledge, ‘Documentary about four of the most brilliant mathematicians of all time, Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing, their genius, their tragic madness and their ultimate suicides.’
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    philosophy of the mind is almost never falsifiableTarskian

    So, what could falsify the thesis you're proposing in this thread? What could someone point to, to demonstrate that your contention 'Mathematical truth is chaotic' is false? Isn't Popper's point that metaphysical theses cannot be disconfirmed by empirical discoveries? What empirical discovery would disprove the thesis 'Mathematical truth is chaotic'?
  • Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic
    If mathematics is "just string manipulation" then it is indeed "about nothing".Tarskian

    Isn’t that just an example of Kant’s dictum ‘concepts without percepts are empty’?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Well the Trump cult does love their delusions.Mikie

    What was that bet again? $10.00 to charity of choice? Looks like I'm about to pay up.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    As I said in the Trump thread, the assassination attempt is a big plus for the Trump campaign. Not to suggest for one minute it was planned or staged - it genuinely appears to be the act of an irrational loner - but that it plays right into the hands of 'martyr' and 'deep state conspiracy'. Many of his supporters will see it like that regardless of the facts.

    Still hoping Biden passes the torch.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Judge Cannon by now has a long history of questionable decisions in that case, most of which seem to have leaned towards the defendants. This dismissal is the capstone of those earlier decisions. It was her response to a motion to dismiss by the defendant. It is being said that the Department of Justice will appeal, but you can bet your boots that if Trump wins in November, this and all the other legal actions against Trump will go away, as he's obviously been betting on. If he looses, we guess that there'll be an appeals process, but it will take years, as always. And such an apparently open and shut case!

    _130051368_trumpindictmentphotosballroom.png.webp

    But then, the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity is being practically interpreted by Trump as an affirmation of what he's always believed, and what his followers believe - that he's above the law. An emperor, not an elected official.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    They're already fundraising off the clenched fist shot. It's the ultimate grift gift for a Donald Trump: martyrdom without death.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    So you believe Putin is bound by doctrine? You think if a multinational force started to engage Russian troops that he would not resort to tactical nukes? You would take that risk, if you were in the position?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trump still thinks if he levies tariffs on Chinese goods that the Chinese pay them.

    Former President Donald Trump is pledging to supercharge one of his signature trade policies — tariffs — if he's re-elected this November, by imposing 10% across-the-board levies on all products imported into the U.S. from overseas. The idea, he has said, is to protect American jobs as well as raise more revenue to offset an extension of his 2017 tax cuts.

    But that proposal would likely backfire, effectively acting as a tax on U.S. consumers, economists spanning the political spectrum say. If the tariffs are enacted — with Trump also proposing a levy of 60% or more on Chinese imports — a typical middle-class household in the U.S. would face an estimated $1,700 a year in additional costs, according to the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. …

    The reason, according to experts: Companies in the U.S. that import goods from abroad typically pass the cost of tariffs onto American consumers; relatedly, domestic manufacturers then often raise their own prices.

    The biggest impact of higher import tariffs would likely fall on low- and middle-income consumers because they spend a larger share of their income on goods and services than wealthier Americans.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-tariffs-proposal-10-percent-1700-cost-per-us-household/

    Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible.Benkei

    Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ not be a consideration? Don’t you think that if Russia were not a nuclear power that NATO would have put boots on the ground in February 2022?
  • How do you interpret nominalism?
    Thomism is all together too in the middle, too ordinary, too boring to possibly be true in any real sense of the word.Gregory

    Be that as it may, and I certainly don’t agree, neither the points raised in the OP nor the philosophy of Hegel are relevant to the issue of what nominalism is. Only @Count Timothy von Icarus’ and my post actually address the question which originated in the medieval period centuries before either Descartes or Hegel.
  • Is Karma real?
    Western ethnocentrism wanting to call the shots.ENOAH

    It’s more that seeing through our own cultural conditioning is very difficult. That goes for Buddhists too.
  • Animal agriculture = wrong ?
    I do agree that factory farming is often extremely inhumane and that animals suffer through it.

    We've been consuming Impossible Meat (plant-based mince products) for a couple of years, but it is literally twice the cost of regular mince. I've often admired vegetarianism, and have even tried to 'go vegetarian' for quite long periods, but living in a meat-based culture, and having been brought up consuming meat, it's hard to find the motivation to continue with it.

    It turns out that lab-grown meat is astronomically expensive. See this gift link to long essay on the problems besetting lab-grown meat, NY Times, February 2024.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Meanwhile, as Biden and politicians around the word pile on the platitudes about 'unification' and 'coming together', and the abhorrence of violence in politics, guess which side is using the episode as ammunition in the culture war?

    "J.D. Vance, a contender for Trump’s choice of running mate, said in a social media post on Saturday that the shooting was “not some isolated incident” and suggested President Biden’s campaign was, at least in part, at fault.

    “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Vance said on the social platform X. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” ~ The Hill

    "Mr. Trump’s eldest son, his campaign strategist and a running mate finalist all attacked the political left within hours of the shooting even before the gunman was identified or his motive determined. “Well of course they tried to keep him off the ballot, they tried to put him in jail and now you see this,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to the former president. (Later deleted.)

    So you can bet that Trump is going to use this attempt as a weapon against Biden, to create further division and fan the flames. His people are already doing it. They'll lap up the condolences and good wishes, and turn them into fuel for the fire.

    But there is an objective reason why Democrats are saying that Trump 'threatens democracy', beyond mere rhetoric. And what reason is that? It was a Trump-inspired mob that broke into the Capital Building on Jan 6th 2021, desecrated the offices and chanted Hang Mike Pence in an attempt to prevent the transition of power. The slates of false electors and Republican lawyers working behind the scenes to prevent it. Trump to this day insists that the 2020 election was rigged, despite having lost 60 lawsuits that attempted to prove that. So there's no 'moral equivalence' here - it can't be said that 'both sides are at fault' if the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge the culpability and potential criminality of its nominee. Trump is a proven threat to democracy, and that's not just a Democrat talking point.
  • Any objections to Peter Singer's article on the “child in the pond”?
    A gift link to a version of the article in the NY Times. Singer's point seems obviously correct, but then, Western culture is entirely predicated on production and consumption of material goods. Without a massive change in outlook and ethos, could society as a whole re-orient itself to the equitable distribution of goods and services so as to ameliorate the conditions in under-developed nations?

    I suppose I can see the virtue of personally committing oneself to a life of extreme simplicity and abandonment of possessions beyond the bare necessities, but what kind of impact would an individual's actions have, in the absence of a mass movement? And wouldn't you need to have those ideals and disciplines instilled at a young age to turn your back on the material standards associated with living in developed cultures?

    Kudos to Singer for bringing these points out, but what does he think the implications ought to be?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    The Australian Broadcasting Commission is airing a two-part series, Retribution, beginning tonight (although it may be geo-blocked outside Australia).

    "I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution." — Donald Trump

    There has never been a US president like Donald Trump — and now he's back, this time with a detailed plan for his second coming.

    Nearly four years after he was cast out by voters and accused of encouraging the American people to assault their own democracy with the attack on the US Capitol, the now convicted criminal wants to rebuild the country in his own image.

    Ahead of the US election in November, Four Corners reporter Mark Willacy travels to Washington for the first of a special two-part series.

    He sits down with White House insiders who witnessed the chaos of Trump's first term — some who continue to support his vision, and others Trump now considers "traitors".

    Trump wants to reshape the pillars of American democracy and give himself more power. Willacy goes inside "Project 2025", the blueprint for a second Trump term and the army of recruits ready to carry out his orders.

    Meanwhile strategy, security and defence experts warn of the impact another Trump presidency could have on America's institutions, its democracy, and the rest of the world.

    Four Corners: Retribution Part 1 — The battle for democracy, will air from 8.25pm on Monday 15 July 2024 on ABC TV and ABC iview.
    //
    Trump continued, arguing: “Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy, Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy.”

    It's been obvious from the outset that Trump projects all the evils he commits onto his enemies. What is really depressing is the ease with which it is believed, even by some here. It also really depressing that this episode has vastly increased his apparent momentum and a sense of the inevitability of his victory. It really is as if Armageddon looms.

    Biden, even in his old age, is hugely more competent and suitable for the role than Trump. But the issue is his electoral appeal, or absence of it.
  • Is Karma real?
    Do you think (as i recall being led to believe) that "sophisticated" Mahayana practitioners/thinkers sweep the reincarnation aspect of karma under the rug, ignore it? And yet, the Bodhisattva vow includes as you say all sentient beings, so how could they.ENOAH

    No, I don't. Many secular Buddhist followers reject it outright and regard re-birth as something that occurs moment-to-moment (which is true in one sense) but not life-to-life. But in my view, saṃsāra is intrinsic to Buddhism, it makes no sense without it. See Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Right! For anyone else, it might be a ‘sad commentary on the state of politics’. Or an ‘outrageous attack on democracy’. But for the campaign, it’s an opportunity!
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ‘The FBI has identified Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pa., as the suspected shooter at former president Donald Trump’s rally, in what the agency is calling an assassination attempt. The shooter was killed. Crooks is a registered Republican, according to the state’s voter status records.‘
  • Is Karma real?
    Do animals deliberate and choose courses of action? Are there malevolent or evil monkeys or lions or wolverines? I'm inclined to doubt that. Which is one of the issues I have with 'karma theory'. According to Buddhist lore, one might be reborn in the animal realm as a consequence of animal behaviour (which is surely not hard to imagine, at least.) But once one is born into the animal realm, how does one 'generate merit' to warrant re-birth in the human realm?

    According to the literature, there are various ways:

    Natural Virtue and Innocence: Some Buddhist texts suggest that even animals can perform meritorious actions through their natural behavior. For example, acts of loyalty, protection, and nurturing by animals may generate positive karma. The inherent innocence and lack of malicious intent in many animals can also be seen as a form of merit.

    Influence of Past Karma: Animals might still be influenced by the remnants of their past positive karma. This residual karma can sometimes lead to experiences or actions that accumulate merit. For instance, an animal might form a bond with a human who treats it kindly, thereby generating positive karma through that relationship.

    Spiritual Interactions: In some stories, animals come into contact with enlightened beings which can lead to the generation of merit. For example, an animal that shows devotion to a Buddha or a Bodhisattva can accumulate merit through that act of devotion.

    Bodhisattva Vows and Acts: Certain advanced practitioners (Bodhisattvas) take vows to liberate all sentient beings, including animals. Their compassionate actions towards animals can help uplift the animals' karmic conditions.

    So while the notion of animals generating merit may seem unlikely given their perceived limitations, Buddhist teachings suggest pathways through which animals can improve their karmic conditions. Through natural virtuous behavior, the influence of past positive karma, interactions with enlightened beings, and the compassionate acts of Bodhisattvas, animals can accumulate merit and potentially achieve rebirth in more favorable realms, including the human realm.

    Another point from Buddhist lore, is the comparative rarity of attaining human birth - hence the expression, especially in Tibetan Buddhism, 'this precious human birth'. Being born in the human realm, and hearing of the Buddha, is an opportunity that is exceedingly rare in cosmic time-scales.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Yeah only an assassination attempt on the leading Republican Presidential contender, missed by about a centimetre.

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Yeah I'm watching CNN live coverage, there's a blurry photo of the shooter. It seems similar to the assassination attempt in Day of the Jackal - long-range shot with telescopic sight. CNN reports many in the audience began to turn on the media and boo them. I'm watching some of the remaining audience members shaking their fists at the camera.
  • How do you interpret nominalism?
    I don't know the history of nominalism very well, so maybe somebody can illuminate this question with some quotes from the pastGregory

    To understand nominalism, it's best to understand how it originated and what it opposed. Its origin is usually assigned to William of Ockham, famous for 'Ockham's razor'. And what was eliminated through said razor was belief in universals, which were central to the Aristotelian elements of scholastic philosophy, for example in Thomas Aquinas.

    So what are universals? In Scholastic philosophy, 'universals' are abstracta that typify the shared properties or essences of particulars. These were said to be real by the scholastics, hence the term 'scholastic realism'. The reality of universals was central to debates about the nature of reality and knowledge. They argued that universals exist in three ways: ante res (before things, as ideas in the Divine Intellect), in rebus (in things, as the common attributes of individual objects e.g. the dogness of dogs, the tree-ness of trees), and post res (after things, as universal concepts such as 'dog' or 'tree'). In Aristotle 'nous' (intellect) is the faculty that grounds rational thought through the ability to grasp universals. This was distinct from sensory perception, including the use of imagination and memory. The ability of the intellect to grasp universals is what enables the setting of definitions in a consistent and communicable way and explains how we can speak meaningfully about categories like 'dogness' or 'tree-ness' despite their instantiation in many diverse particulars. Realists believed that the ability to grasp universals is the unique prerogative and characteristic of reason.

    See: The Theological Origins of Modernity, by M. A. Gillespie, published January 2008.

    "Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment (as reason overcoming religion) on its head by explaining how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the epistemological debate between Descarte and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions posed by nominalism, which according to Gillespie dismantled the rational Cosmos of medieval scholasticism and introduced (by way of the Franciscans) a fideistic God-of-pure-will, born out of a concern that anything less than such would undercut divine omnipotence."

    Also The Cultural Impact of Empiricism, Jacques Maritain - a good summary of the role of universals in rational judgement.

    The World of Universals, Bertrand Russell (from Problems of Philosophy).

    @Paine - relates to the question raised in the thread on Gerson/Aristotle.
  • "Aristotle and Other Platonists:" A Review of the work of Lloyd Gerson
    What is at the top of this top down hierarchy? Is the intelligible dependent on an intelligible being? What is the divine which constitutes an irreducible explanatory category?Fooloso4

    As you (and @Paine) will well know, in Plato, the source or upmost level of the hierarchy of being was 'the idea of the Good'. The Idea of the Good, primarily discussed in the Republic, is the highest and most important of the Forms, the ultimate principle that gives meaning and intelligibility to all other Forms and to the material world. The Good is the source of all reality and knowledge, for which the Sun is an analogy in the Allegory of the Cave. Plotinus, building on and reinterpreting Plato, posits "the One" (ta hen) as the ultimate principle, which is even beyond the Idea of the Good. The One is the absolute, transcendent source of all reality, beyond existence and discursive ideation, the ineffable and indescribable foundation from which everything emanates. In Plotinus' system, the One generates the Divine Mind (Nous), which contains the Forms, and from the Nous emanates the World Soul, which in turn gives rise to the material world.

    Earlier in the thread you said: 'The gods' are, of course, those of the Greek pantheon, but from comparative religion, we learn that have much in common with the other Indo-European cultures, so there are parallels with the Indian pantheon. But in this case, they represent 'the divine'
    — Wayfarer

    What does it mean to conceive of the divine in personal terms?
    Fooloso4

    As you will also know, many elements of Platonism were absorbed into Christian theology by the early Greek-speaking theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, and (Pseudo)Dionysius. It was also transformed so as to be compatible with Biblical revelation - no easy synthesis, and often with tension between them ('what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?') In any case, this is where elements of Plotinus philosophy of the One became identified with, or subsumed by, the God of Biblical revelation. Not that Plotinus would ever countenance that.

    According to Dean Inge, the principle distinction between Plotinus and Christian mysticism is between Plotinus' 'henosis' (absorption into the One) and the Christian 'theosis' in which the soul is said to attain immortality whilst also maintaining an identity. (Even now, there are debates between Christians as to whether and in what sense God is personal - the distinction between 'theistic personalism and 'classical theism'.)

    As far as 'the Gods' were concerned, in later neoplatonism they become identified as the Henads, intermediaries between the One and the human realm. Plotinus did not use that terminology, and like Plato tended to speak of 'the gods' as being symbolic of forces and powers. But scattered throughout the Platonic dialogues are references to paying obeisances or respect to the Gods. That doesn't make Plato "a believer" - perish the thought! - but I think it's reasonable to say that references to the Gods are a kind of shorthand for the divine, however conceived.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Odd that there are no reports of other injuries, though. You'd think that if a bullet grazed his ear, it must end up somewhere else, and he was sorrounded by spectators. //update - two deaths, the shooter and an audience member.//
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I'm looking at the footage of him being hustled offstage by the Secret Service. He's loving it! The crowd loves it! Trump is repeatedly pumping a clenched fist in the air, the crowd are hysterical with anger and self-righteous vindication. Mistake to downplay it.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    This factor is another wildcard in the election. The right are already preparing the ground for militias to take action to 'preserve democracy' (i.e. ensure that Trump is declared winner regardless of the outcome) through violence if necessary. This alleged assasination attempt, if that is what it is, will play right into their hands, right into Trump's 'martyr for the righteous cause' meme. Heaven help us.
  • "Aristotle and Other Platonists:" A Review of the work of Lloyd Gerson
    I get that you connect your view of the 'theological' with a renunciation of the 'materialPaine

    I’m interested in a specific philosophical question, which is the subject of the quote from Lloyd Gerson. The thread is about Lloyd Gerson’s interpretation of Aristotle, as was the passage I’ve been discussing. It’s a philosophical question about the role of universals in the forming of judgement and the sense in which that undercuts materialist theory of mind. I can’t see how that can be construed as ‘theology’.
  • Is Karma real?
    It’s worth mentioning the origin of the term ‘karma’. It is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘kr-‘ which is ‘to do’ or ‘to make’, As a kind of common-sense heuristic it simply implies that ‘all actions have consequences’. It has its echoes in Western cultural history, notably the Biblical maxim ‘As you sow, so too shall you reap’ and also ‘actions becomes habits which form character, and character determines your fate’ which is associated with Aristotelian ethics. Interestingly the Sanskrit term ‘bhavana’ which is sometimes translated as ‘meditation’, actually means ‘becoming’, the implication being that meditation is the cultivation of mental states and virtues which lead to positive outcomes.

    Of course in the Indian context, one has the horizon of future lives in this or other planes of being, in which the consequences of karma come to fruition (for good or for ill) whereas in today’s world, as there is no such conception, the classical concept of karma is meaningless. This is why from the perspective of classical Indian culture, modern culture is by and large nihilist.