Schopenhauer versus Aquinas
To start: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/time/blessed-calm-nonexistence
Aquinas believed that good and being are the same thing. Good and beautiful are the same too, for him. God merely is the most actual of all. He is infinite, says Aquinas. Evil is the absence of good, and God can't be privated of any good. Even something ugly merely lacks some form and proportion. God IS form and proportion (and justice and love). However, there are many times of infinities, as modern people have learned. Aquinas thought there was only one. A consequence of this may be that evil-nothingness (if nothingness is truly evil, as we will assume) may be MORE infinite than God. It could be even more powerful. If evil overpowers good, than evil is the form of good, making it ugly as the process evolves. So our lives, PERHAPS, may be guided by the necessity, or the randomness, of the evil, the ugly, the privation.
What do you guys and girls think?
Aquinas believed that good and being are the same thing. Good and beautiful are the same too, for him. God merely is the most actual of all. He is infinite, says Aquinas. Evil is the absence of good, and God can't be privated of any good. Even something ugly merely lacks some form and proportion. God IS form and proportion (and justice and love). However, there are many times of infinities, as modern people have learned. Aquinas thought there was only one. A consequence of this may be that evil-nothingness (if nothingness is truly evil, as we will assume) may be MORE infinite than God. It could be even more powerful. If evil overpowers good, than evil is the form of good, making it ugly as the process evolves. So our lives, PERHAPS, may be guided by the necessity, or the randomness, of the evil, the ugly, the privation.
What do you guys and girls think?
Comments (69)
- Good is right
- Evil is wrong
So Good is more optimal than evil (always better to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing).
So good overpowers evil.
I don't believe there are any infinities as I may have mentioned.
You didn't provide an argument that good wins over evil
Spinoza is certainly departing from Aquinas and the classical theological tradition in that respect.
I believe Aquinas was a sophist. He found a Mozartian mode of writing that fools you into think he has proven things and that he knows best. Neither Aquinas nor Mozart have the best products
Whether or not that is the case, Aquinas is clear and systematic, at the very least. Whatever else he may be, he is not an obscurantist. When he is wrong, as he sometimes is, it is not at all difficult to isolate the misstep in his argument. If only more philosophers wrote in this style.
If you want to read someone like Aquinas but with rather more subtlety, I would suggest Duns Scotus.
Net pleasure = total pleasure - total pain
Good/right = net pleasure
Evil/wrong = net pain
Your assertion is not at all obvious. Many say pleasure in life comes from doing wrong. Even if pleasure comes about by good, the evil in the world brings pain too. I see no argument so far that good wins over evil, or being's power wins over nothing (assuming nothingness is bad)
I believe that in pre-modern philosophy, there was an (often implicit) idea that individual beings and other denizens of the sensory domain belonged to a lower order than does God and the angelic intelligences. This understanding is depicted in the medieval notion of the 'great chain of Being' depicted in this medieval woodcut
With the advent of modernity and the ascent of nominalism (and Duns Scotus' doctrine of the univocity of being which was fundamental to it), it was precisely this sense of the celestial hierarchy which was undermined; meaning that the 'being' of the 'divine being' was placed in the same ontological division as the being of individual particulars (whereas in Eiriugena it remained differentiated.)
But the notion of an hierarchy of being is what provided for the distinction of 'necessary being' from 'everything that exists' thereby enabling scholastic philosophy to avoid pantheism; because it provided for the notion of different planes or realms of being (i.e. the angelic as distinct from the wordly). And with the erosion of that, for moderns, 'being' is univocal - something either exists or it doesn't; there are not different levels of being - neither religious metaphysics nor ontology is intelligible in this worldview.
It is precisely this sense of higher truth which has been preserved in philosophical theology (although under constant attack from today's technocratic materialism.) It was even still visible in 17th century philosophy:
17th Century Philosophy Theories of Substance IEP.
Yes, in classical Christian theism there is a fundamental, ontological distinction between God and creatures (including angelic beings), which maps onto the creator-creature distinction. Everything other than God is derived, dependent, conditioned, and so on. God himself is none of these things, hence subsistent being itself.
One thing I am not sure about in your analysis is the idea that Scotus's doctrine of univocity is somehow a step away from the idea of a 'great chain of being'. As I understand it, the great chain of being, with God at the top, just is ontological univocism. Everything that exists belongs to a common ontological order, with God as the most pre-eminent instantiation. It is precisely the analogia entis, associated with Aquinas, which places God and creatures in an entirely different ontological order (uncreated and created, respectively). So, in both Scotus and Aquinas, both in univocism and an analogy of being, there is a hierarchy. It's just that, in the one case, it is a hierarchy within a common order of being, and in the other, it is a superiority of the divine order of being over the creaturely.
You are absolutely right that it is precisely the notion of different orders of being which allows for the idea of a 'necessary being'; or in Aquinas's language, a being whose existence is nothing other than his essence. This is certainly something that is undermined once ontological univocism is embraced.
As a side note, Richard Cross, possibly the smartest living analytic philosophical theologian who works with the medievals, believes that the whole 'univocity/analogy' split between Scotus and Aquinas is totally exaggerated and overblown in the literature. According to him, it really is not so fundamental an ontological chasm as it is often made out to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XGI_TVSu6o
It's somewhere in there.
The confusion is that, for Aquinas, ‘God’ exists in actuality outside time, which is impossible. ‘God’ IS eternally, which is not the same as a dog or a rock IS. What this refers to is potentiality. ‘God’ IS infinite in potentiality, but NOT actuality - Aquinas argues that ‘God’ is purus actus, but this is an error of understanding that began with Aristotle: that pure potentiality is ‘nothing’ without form, necessitating an ‘uncaused cause’ as a ‘something’ in order to exist. The argument is based on an assumption that something cannot come from nothing, and that actuality is possible both in time AND eternally.
‘God’ is infinitely ‘good’ only in potentiality, and ‘being’ in the world is the progress of actualising that potential in time. ‘Evil’ is a demonstrated lack of awareness of that potential - the limitations in the world on perceiving this potential for ‘good’, which is necessary for actualising it. We manifest ‘God’ in the world by striving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the potential for ‘good’ in what is actual.
Nothingness is not evil - what the concept refers to is the ignorance, isolation and exclusion of this potential for ‘good’. The evil, the ugly, the privation isn’t eternally necessary, but it is necessarily the actual limitation of ‘good’ in the world. In our lives, we must always start here, and then increase awareness of the potential for ‘good’ as we interact with the world.
But even the perceivable potentiality of ‘God’ is limited, because potential energy/information in the universe is finite. The infinite nature of ‘God’ is not in time or even in potentiality, but in meaning: love or pure relation. The universe matters to the universe, regardless of any perceived potential for ‘good’ or ‘evil’. This is a more accurate understanding of ‘God’.
I think you're mistaken here. The reason is, it is impossible to conceive of 'pure being' in empirical terms, so we have to try and fit it into our conceptual framework according to our understanding of what exists, what is real, and so on. The point we miss (and it's a pretty big one) is that the religious sense of 'knowing the true being' requires or implies something like an epiphany or transformative breakthrough into a different mode of being (called in Platonic philosophy metanoia, transformation of mind.)
I think (tentatively) that time comes into existence with temporal (i.e. 'created') beings. In accordance with many of the perennial philosophical traditions (not only Aquinas) time itself is reliant on a perspective that only exists within the order of created being. Part of the transformation of the understanding that occurs through religious discipline is absorption into a mode of being that is not subject to time (which I understand as the meaning of 'eternal life' in mystical traditions East and West.)
Nihilism is a consequence of the loss of this domain of possibility.
Quoting Virgo Avalytikh
Not an idea of my devising! It's associated with a school called 'radical orthodoxy', John Millbank and Catherine Pickstock. Have a glance at this review. I'm not saying that I agree with it, and have not read right into it (takes a lot of reading!) but it seems plausible.
The ‘deformity power’ of ‘evil’ is a limitation of the observable actuality or the perceived potentiality of ‘God’, but not of the possibility of relating to ‘God’. It can certainly deform how we conceptualise ‘God’, but that’s only how we can think about ‘God’, not ‘God’ itself.
You seem to hold to Plotinus's idea of good, God, and evil. But you didn't provide proof that good is more powerful. Aquinas took it as an axiom. Did Schopenhauer explicitly say evil ruled this world? I've gotten more joy in life out of evil than good (except for a few years of "good behavior" in my early teens, which grew stale). Being good simply doesn't seem to make you feel better. John Stuart Mill said that he would rather be moral and unhappy than immoral and happy. It's an interesting question.
I follow you here, but it’s the stated claim that ‘God is merely the most actual of all’ which I’m disputing here. It’s a common false claim derived from the reasoning of both Aquinas and Aristotle (whether or not that’s what they originally meant). The confusion this creates is the misunderstanding that ‘God’ is ONLY what is actual, or only what is actually ‘good’.
I recognise that this religious concept of God as ‘pure being’ separates temporal (‘created’) and atemporal (‘creative’) modes, and that human capacity incorporates BOTH/AND through increased awareness, connection and collaboration. This atemporal mode of being is not exclusive to religious/mystical transformation, though. Recognising that human experience interacts with an understanding of five-dimensional reality that is not subject to time may be sufficient to ‘breakthrough’ into this different mode of ‘being’.
FWIW, I understand ‘God’ not simply as a mode of ‘being’ outside time, but as pure relation not subject to value: as love. And Nihilism, for me, was a clarification process that enabled me to rebuild an understanding of ‘God’ beyond the limitations of religious moral values.
And who decides it?
The way I see it, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are subjective evaluations that we assume to be universal. So I’m not trying to argue or prove that ‘good’ is more powerful (I don’t think it is), but that you’re focusing on a limited perspective of reality.
What you seem to be recognising here is that a positive interoception - what I experience as ‘good’ for my ‘self’ - doesn’t correspond to what I believe to be ‘good’ for society, or humanity, or the world. There is a relativity to what is deemed ‘good’ or ‘evil’, and so the way we understand ‘God’ as infinitely ‘good’ is suddenly on shaky ground.
That’s okay. There doesn’t have to be a universal morality that we either comply with or rebel against. Understanding BOTH ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as limitations, and that there is more to ‘God’ and to life than the morality and/or happiness of the individual, can be liberating. Continue to question the assumptions that limit our ability to interact with the world as it is. Don’t assume that you’re compelled to choose between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, but rather ask why we assume this duality exists in the first place. Aspire to what Schopenhauer describes as ‘genius’:
This is not as unique as he makes out, nor as necessarily pure, but is within our capacity as humans. The ‘art’ part of it is simply a specific practical knowledge of the potential in a medium of expression. But a ‘clear vision of the world’ may be achievable without ‘artistic’ skills of any kind - it’s simply being open to relating to the world, life or even ‘God’ in a way that is both/neither ‘good’ and/nor ‘evil’ on any level, but rather transcends the dichotomy altogether. You might just find that both Schopenhauer and Mill were limiting themselves in this respect.
Quoting MathematicalPhysicist
It is misleading, decisions that are right (=maximise net pleasure) in the long term can be painful in the short term (eg think exercise, learning to drive).
And decisions that are wrong (=minimise net pleasure) in the long term can be pleasurable in the short term (eg think eating sweets, laziness).
In general, making wrong decisions weakens a person whereas making right decisions strengthens their position, so good wins out over evil.
Evil is not mere absence, but absence as it distorts the good, says Aquinas. So why couldn't evil totally deform the good?
Great analysis P!
My thought there would be that, isn't the concept of God-being outside of time-and thus logically impossible, consistent with other logically impossible phenomena associated with consciousness itself? Like various existential phenomenon including; contradiction, unresolved paradox/self reference, resurrection, love, metaphysical will, and so forth(?)
Or asked in another way: is creation ex nihilo logically impossible? And if so, is that consistent with conscious existence and timelessness(?).
Or in the alternative, would potentiality/eternity suggest theories of incompleteness that we hold to be true (Gödel), make the signposts for God's potentiality more likely, like time itself? (Meaning the unresolved paradox of past, present and future/being and becoming... .)
In other words (using logic), embracing the logically impossible is desired, otherwise we would already have a theory of everything and therefore there would be no need to invoke God in the first place.
Actuality is, by definition, temporal existence. There is nothing actual outside of time. Everything that we think of as existing outside of time - that is, eternal - we relate to as either valuable, potential or possible, but never actual. Whatever actuality it refers to is either a relation of value or potential, or it’s a relation of imagination or meaning to what has value or potential.
I don’t use the term ‘logically impossible’ because I don’t think it makes sense. Something can be illogical and still possible (like love), but not both logical and impossible without exposing some level of ignorance. The way I see it, there are two dimensional levels of awareness and existence outside of time that tend to get confused A LOT. And it’s understandable, because we need to be at least vaguely aware of existing outside of potentiality to be able to distinguish it from possibility. Most people tend to experience ‘phenomenon’ as whatever exists outside of a knowledge structure we call ‘logic’, but it’s more complex than that. And ALL the phenomenon you mention I believe are consistent with a fifth and sixth dimension to reality.
Quoting 3017amen
Logic relates to reality from a position outside of time. By quantifying or attributing logical value to all information, we can structure our experiences in a way that enables us to better understand reality and make predictions about future interactions. But logic rests on the assumption that all of reality can be structured four-dimensionally. The biggest problem with this is that WE can’t - not entirely. Our capacity to employ logic, language, mathematics, science and creativity demonstrates that our mind, at least, relates to reality from outside of time, suggesting that our mind must exist, to some extent, outside of time. What that points to is that the universe we experience is at least five-dimensional.
But we have long demonstrated this with desire, anger, fear, hatred and other ‘emotions’ that are unique to humanity, suggesting hierarchies of value we attribute to internal experiences, memories, events, etc, regardless of when they occur. So there is not only a dimensional awareness beyond time, but this awareness is relative to our unique set of experiences across and even beyond our own temporal existence, and it can’t always be structured logically, let alone four-dimensionally.
Just as we have found that ‘time’ is not a single variable but consists of a number of interrelated variables relative to the position of an observer as an interrelating event (Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ gives a useful explanation of this), so, too, ‘value’ is not just a single value structure of ‘logic’, but several interrelated value structures relative to the accumulated events of an experiencing subject. Understanding how these value structures relate to each other requires us to embrace the illogical.
I think a comprehensive theory of everything would necessarily include a fifth and sixth dimension, such that invoking ‘God’ as a concept would be unnecessary, but understandable - in the same way that talking about ‘time’ as a single concept is unnecessary but understandable.
It sounds like you're Spinozian, with a twist from Plotinus. Plotinus thought the ultimate reality was potentiality. Aquinas said actuality was prior to potentiality because otherwise potentiality could not get started. I think this is wrong, and it is part of the flaw in the botched arguments of deists like Devans99 in trying to prove there is a transcendent God. Potentiality being prior to actuality is in a lot of philosophies and theologies. Just think of the traditional idea of Heaven in China! The world flows from potentiality. There doesn't have to be an eternal being of Act. Potentiality doesn't have to "choose" in order for something to come from it
I certainly wouldn’t refer to myself as ‘Spinozian’ - I’m not all that familiar with his theories - but from a cursory understanding, I do think he was onto something in many respects. Nevertheless, it looks like we are in agreement on this point that pure potentiality begets actuality from beyond time.
Having said that, I reiterate that a sixth dimension takes reality beyond potentiality, into the realm of pure possibility. The illogical notion of ‘squaring the circle’, for instance, is nevertheless an imagined concept in the realm of possibility that lacks any recognisable potentiality. If one can imagine it, then technically it isn’t impossible, even if it can never be actualised in our universe. Squaring the circle matters because it points to the human capacity to relate to the universe in ways that transcend all the conceptual systems of human ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding’ we can reliably construct. From this position not just outside of time but outside of potential or value as we understand it from our perspective, we can more ‘objectively’ examine the structure of our value systems and perception of potentiality - in relation to that of the ecosystem, for instance - and make conscious and deliberate adjustments to our motives that matter: regardless of their perceived anthropocentric, political, cultural or personal ‘survival’ value, and regardless of any ‘logically’ calculated probability of success.
Sure, the phenomenon called Love is beyond logical impossibility, yet to describe it in a proposition, puts it into an axiom or construct of logic and language. Thus, when trying to verbalize Love, it becomes a logically impossible (or ineffable) phenomenon. Or at least a metaphysical one, that in theory, would include a 5th dimensional force (as you suggested), as even Einstein would posit.
And so all we are really alluding to there, in an anthropic way, is the complex nature of consciousness, and the theory that conscious energy is 'out there' only being filtered by the brain. (That of course being in opposition to say the materialist view that the brain excretes substance to do its job of cognition-within itself as a self contained thing in itself.)
And that thought process of entropy would, I believe, also align with Schop's philosophy of a Metaphysical Will in nature.
So, to embrace logical impossibility (as a Christian Existentialist) as irony would have it, only supports my world view of the super natural existing-Love. (Which it turn, relegates Atheism to a pathology inconsistent with natural phenomena or otherwise in denial of the human condition.)
Who was Jesus?
I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be perpetuating the Atheists mantra of yet another axe to grind... . And don't blame me, Einstein said it too...
Otherwise, how do you feel about 'in God we Trust'? Or maybe more notably; Faith Hope and Love(?). Or, to stay on topic, something to do with Metaphysics?????
In other words, how about a constructive argument instead of a mini-rant. LOL
Not sure I follow you here. Objects are not infinite.
Love is always possible, but not always logical. Using language to describe love is fraught with error because the process is necessarily reductive: six dimensional information must be reduced to five-dimensional information and then ‘fit’ into a particular language structure. The difficulty is similar to drawing a table: it takes a certain amount of skill to reduce one’s relationship with a table to a relationship of shapes (2D) or even lines (1D) on a page, without losing important information that expresses its 3D aspect - let alone any aspect of time (4D) or value perspective or perceived potential (5D), or what the table or the moment or its value/potential or simply the relationship itself means to you (6D). And that’s just a table.
Love always involves a reductive process. Personally, I tend to describe an act of love as actualising (4D) a relation (6D) of potentiality (5D). Like the drawing of the table, it’s only when we recognise that what people call ‘love’ always points to more a complex relationship of information than what we’re looking at, that we can get a sense of what that ‘love’ is.
But I haven’t suggested a fifth-dimensional ‘force’ as such. It’s more accurately described as a relation - in much the same way as a 3D object is a relation of space to shape to length from a variable position in time. Where this relation pertains to ‘force’ is the notion of ‘metaphysical will’, which I tend to describe as the faculty by which action is determined and initiated. This 5D relation I see as three ‘gates’ between potentiality and actuality - awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion - which control the flow of energy/entropy.
Quoting 3017amen
I don’t think love is ‘super natural’ at all. Super-logical, ultimately, yes. Ineffable, absolutely.
The complex nature of consciousness refers to our current capacity for awareness, which is not the same for everyone. Most of us have at least some awareness of a five-dimensional relation of value/potential to time to space to shape to length, and our relative position of experiencing subject: an integrated relational structure of the human organism as ‘mind’. The complex nature of love refers to awareness of six-dimensional relation of meaning to value to time to space to shape to length. From the relative position of an experiencing subject, our understanding of love is necessarily a reduction of information, understood as something ‘super natural’ - an actualising of potential, of ‘God’ - because what we understand of the universe is only what consciousness relates to, not what conscious IS. In the same way, most animals understand their universe as only what the living organism (as an event) relates to (ie. as response to stimulus), not what it IS.
But from a possible position beyond the self, relating without limitation or fear to the full potentiality of the universe as an integrated system, we recognise this relational existence as love.
Atheism usually relates specifically to the notion of ‘God’ as an actuality beyond time. I think calling it a ‘pathology’ is unnecessarily judgemental. It derives from a lack of awareness, but then so does every religious doctrine it refutes.
If you’re referring to actual objects, then I dispute this. The material universe is both finite and granular (according to quantum mechanics) and it also seems to be the case in relation to time. Belief in God doesn’t require knowledge, but it’s not about wanting more. It’s about recognising that the way we relate to this awareness that there IS more to reality is ultimately what matters. To speak of an ‘order beyond the material’ is to devalue illogical information about reality.
Both Molinism and Compatibilism are ignorant of the capacity for the human mind to map causal conditions beyond time by relating to potentiality. Determinism refers to measurable relations within time, while the ‘freedom of the will’ refers to our capacity to ALSO relate to reality beyond time, and integrate this information in predicting, evaluating, determining and initiating action.
By granular, you mean discrete? The discrete is like a unicorn. It doesn't exist. Does it have size or not? Is it something or nothing? Those questions refute the opponents of Zeno and Parmenides
If God really abducted a human and walked this earth, we all should crucify him. Christians don't want to
die. That is why they have always said "I know Jesus is coming very soon". They want someone to come out of the sky and bring them somewhere else. The only father I have is my dad. Christians complain about homosexuality, and yet commit lust with their spouses. Giving in to sexual pleasure is always sinful, it is always literally a gay act, no matter what. But who hasn't made an excuse to do it in some form? They should at least admit they are no different from other people and stop casting stones and pretending they have an all powerful dude backing them up
No. By granular, I mean NOT infinitely divisible. Quanta represents a particle of the smallest actual measurement (Planck scale), but quanta are only mathematical representations of the granularity of matter, not actual objects. Objects are three dimensional relations to an observable event.
Agreed. Thus, at the risk of redundancy:
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (Albert Einstein)
The concern there, relates to the many forms of extremism viz lack of self-awareness. So in that context, I would agree.
And, thank for the word picture/metaphor describing the challenges of apprehending this notion of love. I think that's a real phenomenon, even when one is in the trenches sort-a-speak. Like the 80's lyrics; been in love before..., the hardest part is when you're in it. It's in many ways paradoxical. The limitation's of language indeed presents us with challenges in expressing our so-called sentient sojourn. We seek love, yet we don't really understand that which we seek.
With respect to the definition of super natural I'll offer this:
It seems to me that the supernatural (whatever it may be) is outside of space and time and thus the laws of nature as we know them do not apply to the supernatural. By laws of nature I refer to strong force, weak force, gravity, EM force.
The 'supernatural' could describe anything which cannot be observed or proven by any classical means, but only by intuition and belief. Such as the presence of love, or for some people, the existence of God. You cannot classically devise a "proof" of neither but it exists only in our minds and in the way we believe. We can't prove we love someone, we just know that we do. And so I believe that love and God are examples of supernatural "entities".
To speak to one's logic of it all, I would have to default to Kant's idea of the noumenal realm, when trying to understand the true nature of this thing called Love and/or the super natural.
Thomistic guys would say you can't have pure potentiality coming into actuality without a law that was actual guiding it. Hence their response to Plotinus. Yet, I don't like their whole potential/actual game they play. It's just a mental game. We can say the world comes from the One of Parmedines. All we experience eternally flows from it. It is not changed by us nor acts as a person. In fact there is no need to posit other persons out there besides the ones on this planet. We have plenty of people, and animals, and even plants, to love without believing we need something else higher than all this to love. I think Einstein would agree with that.
You might feel you need something higher, but that doesn't prove there is something higher. Desire is not an argument for existence. I think this is essentially where Schopenhauer parts with Aquinas
I accept your definition of ‘supernatural’, but I think the classical axioms upon which the term is based undermine its usefulness in a discussion such as this. Remember that the ‘laws of nature’ used to be Newton’s, so already the definition has shifted away from a classical view of ‘nature’ and what is ‘natural’.
If we’re to better understand these ‘laws of nature’ you refer to, then even science needs to recognise them as ‘evidence’ of a reality that transcends time. These ‘laws’ set the potential energy/entropy access of the unfolding universe, and point to a five dimensional aspect to reality. Our scientific understanding of this dimension starts with probability wave calculations, but the role of the observer can no longer be ignored or concealed in science. It opens the door to studying the effects of things like ‘belief’ or ‘affect’ on probability wave calculations using scientific method, and better understanding consciousness as a five-dimensional aspect of the human organism.
I disagree that understanding or proving either love or ‘God’ can only be achieved by intuition and belief. We can subjectively ‘prove’ or at least affect the probability of the awareness of both love and ‘God’ existing for others by how we relate to them and to the world. It’s not scientific (not yet), but the potential is there, at least.
Quoting 3017amen
Well, the way I see it, the noumenal/phenomenal divide is narrowly anthropic, and a clearer understanding of how we relate to this ‘noumenal realm’ (of which we are a part) through conceptual structures needs to take into account the way animals, plants, chemical reactions and molecules relate to the same ‘noumenon’. Because we don’t just relate to reality conceptually, but also on other levels, which continually influence the structure of our ‘phenomenal world’.
How or what are some of the cognitive tools we can access in proving or understanding the EOG?
But who decided that you should decide?
No one, not me at least... :-D
Gregory, could you please elaborate a bit more on that point?
The reason why I'm asking, for one, is how does one reconcile Metaphysical Will in Nature (Schopenhauer) being beyond a material object or entity?
If you are equating "something higher" with the Will, I don't think you would be far off the mark there(?). Maybe try to define the Will first.
Analogous examples of those things from conscious existence could include of course the Will; sense of wonderment, Love and other metaphysical abstracts and phenomenon from our sense datum (mind-dependent 'objects' that we are directly aware of in perception).
I’m only saying that we shouldn’t dismiss the capacity of the scientific method (minus the classical assumptions) to reach an understanding of the absolute possibility of the universe that is referred to as ‘God’. It certainly won’t be a classically devised proof. But we can reliably calculate certain potentialities, so if we don’t automatically discard the low probability information in these calculations, but rather find some way to include them in our understanding of the universe, then we’re on our way to recognising the ‘illogical/improbable possibility’ in the universe that points to the absolute possibility that exists beyond logic.
An example of this is the efforts scientists go to in measuring the minute energy signatures of neutrinos and other particles in the universe, because we now realise that they matter to our understanding of reality. This discovery began from a vague awareness of an improbable or ‘low value’ possibility, that mattered to the extent that we developed a collaborative potential to relate to this possible existence by relating to elements in the universe that have greater potential (or attribute more significant value) in how they relate to what is insignificant to us, such that it changes the value of our relation to what is sufficiently significant to us, so that we notice it. Love as a six dimensional relation is the same thing: recognising that what is significant to you but is insignificant to me matters in relation to its relation to your significance to me.
In this same manner, we approach an understanding of the existence of ‘God’ by relating to the world to the extent that what matters, (what is ‘loved’) is not just everything I think or believe I could ever value, but everything that could ever be valued by everything I could ever value, whether or not I think or believe that I could, or that they could.
The current understanding of ‘time’ as a number of interrelated variables in relation to three dimensional information, rather than a single measurement of the universe, is another example. This opens the way to understanding ‘value’ or ‘potential’ as a number of interrelated formulae (probability calculations) in relation to three or four dimensional information. Managing the relative uncertainty of our predictions is already beginning a paradigm shift in how we do science. Recognising that what we understand as ‘value’ or ‘potential’ is not necessarily numerical I think is the next big hurdle for science.
Physical science/theoretical science already uses Kantian tools like synthetic propositional logic and inference in their sense of wonderment about the cosmos. Meaning, synthetic propositions are almost always used for discovering newness or testing a new physical theory uncovering truly novel ideas/discoveries about same. Also, as you may know, cognitive science will take empirical studies or otherwise take human experiment's and infer other theories about existential phenomena. All of which can lead to a greater understanding about things like EOG/Love phenomena and other ethical/cosmological concepts and so-called intrinsic human needs... .
While we can have Kantian intuition, we can act on our those intuitions by experience or experiencing similar phenomena in living this life. We then can infer the probabilities, much like science, that in this case a Schop/ metaphysical will/EOG is more likely than not.
I admit, I’m not all that familiar with the academic philosophy of language, but I tend to agree with Quine’s perspective of the synthetic-analytic distinction in response to Kant: that the justification of even supposedly analytic propositions are still contingent upon a shared meaning of concepts in relation to experiencing subjects, just as supposedly synthetic propositions are also constructed according to the limitations of language and other ‘logical’ value structures that appear to preclude the necessity of such a relative value position as an experiencing subject.
Science has all but abandoned the search for a ‘universal time’ variable, recognising that this four-dimensional aspect of reality consists of a number of interrelated variables in relation to an observer. Quantum probability formulae without a ‘time’ variable are found to be more accurate, leading to an accepted scientific view that the universe of spacetime consists of interrelated ‘events’ rather than ‘objects’ in spacetime - but this is just the beginning. It’s a useful shift that allows for the irreducibility of reality.
In the same way, a more accurate structure of the five-dimensional aspect of reality can be achieved not by proposing one ‘objective’, ‘logical’ or ‘ethical’ value system, but by recognising that our experiential reality consists of a number of amorphously interrelated value systems (currently isolated as mathematical, linguistic, ethical, social, political, aesthetic, musical, etc) in relation to an experiencing subject. In order to accurately ‘collapse’ all of this information into a determined and initiated action (a function of the metaphysical will), an expression should be carefully rendered to include this complexity of information in the observable event. This is the skill and talent of an artist/genius to which Schopenhauer refers, a capacity we can all develop only by testing for prediction error in our conceptual systems - which manifests as pain, humility and loss (suffering or negative affect) in our experience.
What we call ‘intuition’ I think refers to the extent to which we interrelate and include these value systems in how we interact with reality, rather than ignore/isolate/exclude information according to a simplified dichotomy or continuum (good/evil, logical/illogical, objective/subjective, analytic/synthetic, even probability, etc). The more we increase awareness, connection and collaboration, the more we recognise that all value systems reduce information, and so even language or logic alone can only approach this complexity of shared meaning that points to the infinite interrelation of all possibility (EoG).
It is how we relate to this possibility beyond language, beyond even our own experience (eg. to what we cannot understand or rationalise in others’ expressions or actions) that enables us to render a more accurate conceptualisation of reality. Buddha and Jesus were onto something: simply relating (without judgement) to what we may feel justified to exclude, and being open to its possibility, is the key to refining the accuracy of what is ‘reality’, ‘truth’, ‘love’ or ‘God’ as a five-dimensional rendering of six-dimensional information, and to reducing the prediction error (suffering) of subsequent interactions with reality, as four-dimensional action/expression events.
Keep in mind that not all interpretations of evil relate to moral concerns. And in existential ethics (what it means to live a happy life) and cosmology, evil is considered a lack of perfection or lack of knowledge about the secrets of the universe and its complex nature. It also speaks to the Christian metaphor viz the tree of Life.
Here is an example of a valid argument in Aquinas (ST 1.2.3)
1. A thing cannot be simultaneously in potentiality and in actuality in the same respect. (Premise)
2. To move, a thing must be actual in a certain respect. (Premise)
3. To be moved, a thing must be potential in that respect. (Premise)
4. Therefore, a thing cannot move itself. (1, 2, 3)
To support your charge that Aquinas is a sophist, please supply an example of an invalid argument in Thomas.
Quoting 180 Proof
And this excerpt from an old post objecting to the soundness, etc of "the cosmological argument":
Quoting 180 Proof
Think empirically: good is equal to my 600 pound life? No. Being on the road, on foot, in heavy traffic? No. Complete failure of an idea just right there.
Quoting Gregory
Ahh, but has he considered unicorns? They too are most actual of all, AND infinite. And so are the cosmoballs of Tralfamador. I think Aquinas needs to think things trough a bit more.
Everything has actuality first and their potentiality comes from what substance they are. A rock not being able to move has nothing to do with potentiality but it's actuality. Potentiality is actuality. A rock can't move because it doesn't have a nervous system. And why did you open a two year old thread, gee
Unicorns don't exist, while Aquinas says God has all reality in Him. But it's in a unity, so it's not like unicorn nature in there and human nature is there (in the divine nature). The problem is you can prove the Thomisic God doesn't exist from your first statement. Ugliness is a part of the world yet God constantly regenerates the world. So he creates ugliness anew every moment. Would Aquinas call this "unfitting" for God? The world is suppose to reflect God who IS his happiness, yet we see ugliness, despair, and evils apart from moral evils. These fall on God, not man
The problem here, bud, is that there is no God. Not in the sense that there is not enough evidence to conclude as much, but in the sense that there is no evidence whatsoever to concluded as much, and all evidence that does exist for explanation of reality, are all demonstrations of self-emergence and operation. That's why it's like a unicorn, they made it up, dude. They've been making stuff up like it for 1000's of years. It's all fabricated. You are here to reflect you, not God. That's why you think your thought, enjoy your tastes, cherish your memories, and understand sensory data computation from your brain. Ugliness is part of the world specifically because of thinking not grounded in the value of human consciousness. I kindly invite you to read my most recent post on something the philosophical community needs to discuss and comment. I'd like to see what someone of your thought has to say in response.
Tradition lives in us in a way that defies science. These ideas we get from the past define what we think when we rationalize about the world and it's source. When we think of God, we turn towards that past and imagine one being as the first father. Ultimately though, we are alone in the world but good can win out
This, of course, is brilliantly asserted and accurate. However, science does account for this, modern neuroscience specifically. However, I will say that it is newer science. If you'd like to take a look at, I'll leave it here for you: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=kIPDJTnFJ1jtMG391GeRJBJ0XILeoGNXFMbS&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=xPTKXCJDhxoUdEQTTs0NbH0ptyvbHWXKpdG8&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition5%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=5&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle
I agree that the world is matter and this is all there is. But I believe the matter in the world is mystical. So we can speak of love and camaraderie in terms of scientific language but it doesn't make much sense. The hard part is seeing matter as matter while holding on to the mystical side of this world as we face things and situations a good God would not allow
What does this mean? You believe something for which no evidence suggest, and no reason would provide you to believe.
Quoting Gregory
He wouldn't, good is a human concept, and humanity is its source and origin.
If you look at ivory and see matter while i see something mystical, we can both be called materialist while only one has the their eyes in focus. The link between the logical category of matter and your experience of it might not be what you think. Do you believe in free will? Matter can sense, reason, and choose so of course it's a mystical substance
I see. You and I are in accord. Yes, the emergent universe is beyond wonderous, but it is wonderous in its own majesty. For what it is. As far as logic, yes, you're correct. That's why if a logical position is valid, doesn't mean it's sound. To be sound, it must correspond to reality.
Quoting Gregory
I believe will constitutes all emergent aspects of the human brain and the body through which it operates, controls, and intitiats behavior, computation, and produces consciousness. And this process is not an ihibited process for the duration of its existence. So, yes, in a manner.
(Paraphrased from the Book of the Tarot)