Posted on 10/31/2005 10:00:31 AM PST by Ed Hudgins
My disgust was not regarding your imagined insult, it was at your obvious baiting. And now I see that you're adding projection to your weak attempt to enter the conversation. I'm not baiting Christians -- I am a Christian.
I've seen your attitude before, the narcissism in your latest comments -- "Your obvious frustration (which I have seen manifest in others here) runs into a brick wall when confronted by a heterodox atheist like myself." -- I have seen many times over the years. It's typical of mensa boards that degenerate into contests about who has the most bizarre sexual "curiosity".
Get over yourself.
Exactly. I had 4 children under 10 with me trick-or-treating last night, and we avoided super "spooky" looking houses, but one house had we went to had, off to the side, a female mannikin, hog-tied, with an ax in her back and fake blood and gore. Nice image for little girls to see trick-or-treating. Seems like Halloween has become increasingly nasty and anti-child.
Ok, what does follow? I have my notions, but am interested in yours.
But the problem for Rand is the nature of consciousness. Is consciousness essentially different from matter? If so, she grants the existence of the non-material. If not, then there exists no basis for morality, truth or certain knowledge.
I’m going to leave off arguing what anyone wrote; to often that turns into arguments on interpretation. The fallacy I see in your syllogism is the implication that the non-material is separate from the material. Let’s leave aside consciousness for the moment (we shall return) and look at another abstract that is dismissed by the Objectivist/rationalist view, society. The argument is made that society does not exist, it is a group of individuals. True enough in one sense -- which I’ll call the material sense. Yet there is that other sense that tells us when two people are together there is a third presence, a synergy. How many people on this board wouldn’t show the level of bigotry towards Muslims that we see here daily on their own, yet engage in it here -- a mob mentality. Is this material or non-material?
Of course, it relates back to consciousness, and we’ll get there, I promise. My point is structured upon seeing the individual in a society as a discrete process that can not produce the process of “society” on its own, but when combined with other individuals the process, or abstract, or non-material, thing called society occurs. This is analogous to the material and non-material processes of the mind. We see simple organisms with relatively few processes, some with rudimentary nervous systems. At this point, science (reason) can not identify consciousness in these organisms (I know this sentence is loaded and you’ll probably pounce on it, but I’m going to keep moving). On up the hierarchy of development there are much more complicated nervous systems, and where there is some cerebellum development we find phenomena like elephants that have aspects of culture -- resting grounds for the dead is one of the more remarkable of these aspects. Is this just a complex biological “wet“ (material) process, or is it non-material consciousness? If consciousness begins to occur when there is a certain minimum level of wet processes in an organism, just as society occurs when there is a certain minimum number of individuals gathered, does that make consciousness material or non-material? Does it matter?
Oops, I meant cerebral, not cerebellum.
I agree with you. I like the Jack O Lanterns and the ghosts, but masks covered in fake blood, lawns with phony corpses and zombies, are kind of a turnoff.
Careful. You are liable to wind up on the ping lists of a few FReepers who will adamantly tell you that those mass graves don't exist, or, at a minimum, everyone in them is a terrorist who needed killin'.
Nothing and/or everything and anything. It's all matter in motion. It's a blind, random, determined and necessary material process playing itself out.
This is what follows necessarily from the doctrine that reality consists of nothing other than matter in motion.
The fallacy I see in your syllogism is the implication that the non-material is separate from the material. Let’s leave aside consciousness for the moment (we shall return) and look at another abstract that is dismissed by the Objectivist/rationalist view, society. The argument is made that society does not exist, it is a group of individuals.
This is an example of reductionism, although not necessarily materialistic reductionism.
True enough in one sense -- which I’ll call the material sense. Yet there is that other sense that tells us when two people are together there is a third presence, a synergy.
The whole is greater than its parts. True. This is a very important philosophical insight that conforms to our common sense. Have you read Aristotle on form and matter?
How many people on this board wouldn’t show the level of bigotry towards Muslims that we see here daily on their own, yet engage in it here -- a mob mentality. Is this material or non-material?
What are you referring to, exactly? The fact that a group can be more than the sum of its parts? That's true. But the group is an abstraction, a real and true abstraction, but an abstraction nonetheless. I think you're driving at the classic philosophical problem of universals.
Of course, it relates back to consciousness, and we’ll get there, I promise. My point is structured upon seeing the individual in a society as a discrete process that can not produce the process of “society” on its own, but when combined with other individuals the process, or abstract, or non-material, thing called society occurs.
Very true. So what is this thing, if it is not the individuals themselves? Does it have real existence? In what sense? These questions are addressed in the link above regarding universals. It's a very deep question, but one that has an answer.
We see simple organisms with relatively few processes, some with rudimentary nervous systems. At this point, science (reason) can not identify consciousness in these organisms (I know this sentence is loaded and you’ll probably pounce on it, but I’m going to keep moving). On up the hierarchy of development there are much more complicated nervous systems, and where there is some cerebellum development we find phenomena like elephants that have aspects of culture -- resting grounds for the dead is one of the more remarkable of these aspects. Is this just a complex biological “wet“ (material) process, or is it non-material consciousness? If consciousness begins to occur when there is a certain minimum level of wet processes in an organism, just as society occurs when there is a certain minimum number of individuals gathered, does that make consciousness material or non-material? Does it matter?
Thought must necessarily be an essentially spiritual or non-material phenomenon because if thought were an essentially material process, it would be impossible for us to have certain knowledge of any kind. But we do have certain knowledge of particular things, so materialism must be false.
Let me explain more fully. Suppose that materialism is true. Reality would then consist of nothing more than matter in motion; blind material forces playing themselves out. Then it would necessarily follow that my thought that "materialism is false" is simply the result of blind material forces playing themselves out. Similarly, your (or someone else's) thought that "materialism is true" would equally be the result of blind material forces playing themselves out. These thoughts are logically contradictory, yet on what objective basis could we say that one statement is "true" and the other "false"?
To pass an objective judgment on these assertions requires an extra-material vantage point, which is the spiritual and in this case the "soul" or substantial form of the body.
Similarly, if my brain is simply a machine, how could I know with certainty that my brain is not malfunctioning? Universal skepticism and doubt follows necessarily.
Absolutely disgusting.
That's why I stopped following the Balkan threads.
If the mass graves didn't exist, neither would my nightmares.
For awhile there I thought someone had hijacked my favorites list and redirected me to SerbApologist.com.
Moses was hardly unlearned, he could have been Pharaoh and was well educated relatively much more than others of his day. Moses was a warrior philosopher. (Socrates was also a warrior.)
But, Moses was just a man and could not have known everything.
That has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, total nonsense...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
I'm not baiting Christians -- I am a Christian.
Really? I'm not, but you sure fooled me.
Good point, but Egyptian philosophy (if there was such a thing) was not as advanced as Greek philosophy, and even that did not come into fruition until almost 1000 years after his death. Moses would have had to have been a singular philosophical genius. Aside from the revelation of God's name, there is no other biblical evidence for this.
It has everything to do with your approach to the conversation.
Really? I'm not, but you sure fooled me.
Neither my intent, nor my concern.
I snacked on Aristotle for a number of years without instruction and found most of it was dry as unsalted crackers. About five years ago I finally planted a translation of his works in the bathroom and worked through it while working it through. His "Substance, Form and Matter" has little bearing on my thought processes (my immediate thought is that it is obsolete), at least not that I'm aware of. I'll have to review it a bit before I can give you answer on that (and I'm not up to it tonight).
But the group is an abstraction, a real and true abstraction, but an abstraction nonetheless.
Yet, it is not. I just got back from a meeting where things were discussed and decisions made. The decisions will be published as from the group. In that context they are no more abstract than we are an abstract of the millions cells, bacteria, etc. that comprise our bodies. We don't say, there goes Aquinasfan, but he's not real, he's just a collection of cells (or atoms, etc). I guess my point is that I think it is a mistake to think in dichotomous terms; individual or collective; material or non-material; science or religion. When offered a choice of these dichotomies, my answer is "yes". ;) I'm not discarding the task of separating the discrete from the universal, I am adding to that task by adding another dimension -- a circumstance or a "place and time".
Then it would necessarily follow that my thought that "materialism is false" is simply the result of blind material forces playing themselves out. Similarly, your (or someone else's) thought that "materialism is true" would equally be the result of blind material forces playing themselves out. These thoughts are logically contradictory, yet on what objective basis could we say that one statement is "true" and the other "false"?
I'm not asserting that one is true and the other false. The thing that you haven't embraced is that they have not played out. Well, not entirely, but there are some early returns from the game that lead me to my conclusion about dichotomies above. In this case, that consciousness is neither wholly material, nor wholly non-material; that metaphysics necessarily interacts with physics. I can not ponder life without my brain.
And so neither can Objective Judgment be physical or metaphysical. There are some "place and time" factors that may make what looks like an evil from a physical judgment a blessing from a metaphysical one (I give my life for a loved one), and the more common obverse where what seems great physically is in fact an evil that haunts long after I'm gone. Most likely, my practice is the same as yours, in very real terms, which is to look to our religion for guidance on these matters. I rejoice when I reflect on my understanding of how and why Christ sacrificed to save us. Even what is known as the passion is an example of the inseparability of the physics and the metaphysics.
Similarly, if my brain is simply a machine, how could I know with certainty that my brain is not malfunctioning? Universal skepticism and doubt follows necessarily.
I don't know how you made the leap from the discrete to the universal there. It is very likely that you would not know if your brain is malfunctioning. This is a common characteristic of mental dysfunction. This seems to be a fallacy of atomistic thinking. Why would you expect that you would be the only person involved in diagnosing your mental condition? I suppose you may have to if you were on desert island, in which case you would probably judge as best you can, by your physical survival (occasional consultations with a vollyball, optional).
The connection between the dysfunctional brain and a universal dysfunction (dysfunctional society) may be real (and may finally get us back on the topic of this thread ;), but I hesitate to call it universal. I would like to think that there will always be some who remained skeptical.
ping to the conversation
Slave: But Master, you can't hold me responsible! According to your own philosophy, I was fated to steal from you!
Zeno: Yes. And I to beat you.
Most people probably do. I did. But he's worth slogging through, especially "the four causes," "substance and accident," "matter and form," "potency and act," and "the soul." These things have done more to clarify my own thinking than anything else I've ever read --by far. Along with Aquinas, he's the master of (rigorous) common sense. What I especially like about Aristotle is that he doesn't ignore or downplay any aspect of reality. I've found all Modern philosophers to be reductionists of some kind.
About five years ago I finally planted a translation of his works in the bathroom and worked through it while working it through. His "Substance, Form and Matter" has little bearing on my thought processes (my immediate thought is that it is obsolete), at least not that I'm aware of. I'll have to review it a bit before I can give you answer on that (and I'm not up to it tonight).
His thought is timeless. You'll find that his categories describe and adequately explain the way we all communicate --materialist and theist alike.
But the group is an abstraction, a real and true abstraction, but an abstraction nonetheless.
Yet, it is not. I just got back from a meeting where things were discussed and decisions made. The decisions will be published as from the group.
But before the decision is published, where did it exist? Only in the minds (souls) of those who decided and those who witnessed the decision.
In that context they are no more abstract than we are an abstract of the millions cells, bacteria, etc. that comprise our bodies. We don't say, there goes Aquinasfan, but he's not real, he's just a collection of cells (or atoms, etc).
There is a qualitative difference. The decision mentioned above exists first as an immaterial act of the will, and then as an idea, as the act is apprehended by the intellect.
Regarding the "self," we are certainly more than the sum of our parts. Otherwise, commonsensically, there would be no difference between myself and a corpse. What is missing from the corpse is the substantial form of the body --the organizing principle of the body or "soul."
So in the first case, the decision is an immaterial act of the will and secondarily an immaterial idea, while in the second case, my "selfness" is the substantial form of the body (which is also immaterial when considered separately from the body). The substantial form of the body is inextricably "bound up" with the body. Body and soul represent a compound substance (man), while the separation of body and soul represents disorder or death.
The essential difference between the decision mentioned above and my soul, although both are immaterial, is that acts of the will and ideas of the mind do not represent essential aspects of my being, while my substantial form (or soul) is essential to my being --to what I am.
I guess my point is that I think it is a mistake to think in dichotomous terms; individual or collective; material or non-material; science or religion. When offered a choice of these dichotomies, my answer is "yes". ;) I'm not discarding the task of separating the discrete from the universal, I am adding to that task by adding another dimension -- a circumstance or a "place and time".
I think I addressed this above. Or maybe not. Anyway, you're better off with Aristotle or Aquinas than me. 8-)
In this case, that consciousness is neither wholly material, nor wholly non-material; that metaphysics necessarily interacts with physics. I can not ponder life without my brain.
Agreed. My point though is that thought must, at bottom, be a spiritual activity. I would be foolish to argue that there is no interaction between thought and the brain. It seems to me that your intuition conforms with the Aristotelian notion of the soul being the organizing principle of the body. Aristotle embraced the idea that organisms are irreducible hylomorphic components of matter and form.
And so neither can Objective Judgment be physical or metaphysical. There are some "place and time" factors that may make what looks like an evil from a physical judgment a blessing from a metaphysical one (I give my life for a loved one), and the more common obverse where what seems great physically is in fact an evil that haunts long after I'm gone.
That's true, but that's not what I'm referring to with regard to an objective ground from which to pass judgment on observable phenomena. You're getting here into the problem of evil.
Most likely, my practice is the same as yours, in very real terms, which is to look to our religion for guidance on these matters. I rejoice when I reflect on my understanding of how and why Christ sacrificed to save us. Even what is known as the passion is an example of the inseparability of the physics and the metaphysics.
The importance of the Incarnation regarding the inseparability of physics and metaphysics is inestimable in the history of science and religion. The Incarnation definitively destroyed all attempts to synthesize Christianity and pantheism. Even other monotheistic faiths, like Judaism and Islam, tended to lapse into pantheism. The Christian notions of creation from nothing in time and the linear nature of time are what gave birth to science in the West.
I don't know how you made the leap from the discrete to the universal there. It is very likely that you would not know if your brain is malfunctioning. This is a common characteristic of mental dysfunction. This seems to be a fallacy of atomistic thinking. Why would you expect that you would be the only person involved in diagnosing your mental condition? I suppose you may have to if you were on desert island, in which case you would probably judge as best you can, by your physical survival (occasional consultations with a vollyball, optional).
If my brain is simply reducible to a machine (which I don't believe, but which follows from materialism), how would it be possible to know anything with certainty? How, at any point in time, could I know that "the machine" is working properly? Universal skepticism and solipsism follow necessarily. Of course, universal skepticism and solipsism are internally incoherent and self-refuting, so the premise (that the universe is composed of matter alone) must be false.
C.S. Lewis does a better job than me in #4 here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.