Replies

Thanks for your responses. As to Aristotle and the senses, there seems to be this distressing tendency in pop philosophy at least to jump from the fact that our senses may not correctly perceive everything possible(subatomic or quantum physics, for example - or is it just that we don't have the proper instruments of observation yet?) to the conclusion that there is, therefore, no truth. It seems that we all do in fact trust our senses most of the time, such as while we are driving down the freeway at 65 mph between two semis, unless we know there is a defect, in which case we do something like get a pair of glasses and compensate for it.

I guess the point for me is, that as a rational being (at least I like to think of myself that way), my senses are enougn to allow me to know the world and to draw certain conclusions from it based on my observations. To use an example, having observed lots of girls and boys (as a dad and a coach) one of my conclusions is that boys and girls are different by nature. That type of conclusion - in fact, the possibility of that type of conclusion - would be denied by some, who deny nature itself.

Now, as a Christian, I find much in Aristotle entirely consistent with Christianity. If God made the world, surely He made it in some kind of consistent, knowable way so we can get around and figure it out and make sense of it and of ourselves. We have a nature that we can know. One does not have to be a Christian to figure out that much, and Christians and others can have common ground to that extent (as Paul seems to suggest in Romans).

So, whether our senses are ultimately reliable to detect every possible phenomena seems to be a differnt question that whether they are reliable enough to do what I think both Plato and Aristotle were concerned about (and what the point of Christianity is to a great extent): live the right kind of life.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks again for providing a great and thoughtful discussion.

...there seems to be this distressing tendency in pop philosophy at least to jump from the fact that our senses may not correctly perceive everything possible(subatomic or quantum physics, for example - or is it just that we don't have the proper instruments of observation yet?) to the conclusion that there is, therefore, no truth....

Yes! It is absurd, too, because it implies, because we cannot not know everything, we cannot know anything.

Now, as a Christian, I find much in Aristotle entirely consistent with Christianity.

It is. I am not a Christian for the very reason that most (apparently not you) reject the rationality of both the Bible and Aristotle. (Please do not assume anything because I choose not to call myself a Christian, which today is the equivalent of Augustinianism -- a blend of Bible truth, Platonic mysticism, and Manicheian paganism.)

So, whether our senses are ultimately reliable to detect every possible phenomena seems to be a differnt question than whether they are reliable enough to do what I think both Plato and Aristotle were concerned about (and what the point of Christianity is to a great extent): live the right kind of life.

That's right, at least for the Bible and Aristotle, not for Plato.

Hank

Thank you so very much for your reply and for sharing your insight!

So, whether our senses are ultimately reliable to detect every possible phenomena seems to be a differnt question that whether they are reliable enough to do what I think both Plato and Aristotle were concerned about (and what the point of Christianity is to a great extent): live the right kind of life.

To the extent the Word informs morality, I agree with your observation. But I suspect you agree that the Word is much more than that. He transcends from the spiritual realm, which is altogether unmeasurable in the material sense - and thus must be understood spiritually and not mentally.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - 1 Corin 1:19-25

As to Aristotle and the senses, there seems to be this distressing tendency in pop philosophy at least to jump from the fact that our senses may not correctly perceive everything possible(subatomic or quantum physics, for example - or is it just that we don't have the proper instruments of observation yet?) to the conclusion that there is, therefore, no truth.

bigcat, of course the senses are indispensable to us just to get around in daily life. And we humans trust them with a lot. (Even though there are times when, say, our "eyes play ticks on us.")

What I wanted to draw attention to however (perhaps the QM analogy was not the best way to do it), is the fact that there are real things that are not available to sense perception. Things like ideas, mathematical theorems, the laws of nature, theories of all descriptions, consciousness, emotions, the feeling part of sensory experience, time, etc., are real though perfectly intangible.

Eric Voegelin had a rather amusing term for such like: "non-existent reality." This sounds like an oxymoron; but it really isn't when you think about the class of "objects" that it describes. They are "real," just as the short list of things in the above specifies real things; but they do not have existence as physical objects available to sense perception.

People who want to make sense perception (understood as extended via increasingly sophisticated observational instruments) the criterion of what is real tacitly deny reality to a huge part of human experience and existence.

Such a definition of reality is really quite absurd. It results in a grotesque reductionism of nature and especially of human nature.

Certainly Truth itself is not available to sense perception. Nor is the idea of "living the right kind of life." And it seems that Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity all agree that you can't do the latter without having a conception or standard of the former.

So if it were true that these aren't "real things," because intangible and therefore unvalidatable by the senses, then what would be the point of human life?