AJJ

You say that, but then I think you illustrate the distinction I described when you say: ——— Or perhaps their interpretation lends the clearest insight...

From what I understand there’s a distinction to be drawn between philosophical scholarship (what so-and-so actually said and thought) and interpretati...

Ah OK, well there you go. Do you know where in particular I could read about that?

This was discussed in Dfpolis’s thread on realism, and Feser talks of it in his book (matter per se is termed “prime matter”): So matter is simply the...

Perhaps you have a point, though I think what you’ve quoted there may be misleading. Here’s something else from the pages you linked to:

The doctrine doesn’t refer to matter per se; it refers to material objects, of which matter is a component along with form.

I’ve quoted Feser referring to the doctrine already. Material objects are a composite of matter and form. Go to the section on hylomorphic compounds: ...

Yes, on the Aristotelian doctrine material objects are composites of matter and form. So you can’t in a material object have one without the other - I...

The quote refers directly to an Aristotelian doctrine. It doesn’t refer to Plato.

The quote refers to material objects, not matter per se. Material objects is what I’m referring to as well. So to answer the question someone could en...

It means “intellect independent of the world”. In the book I quoted from it’s referred to often as “the divine intellect”. It’s part of Plato and Aris...

“Intellect independent of the world” is what I mean by “divine intellect”.

But if you take Aristotle’s metaphysics to be true then you believe in the divine intellect, which is where the forms matter has come from, right? On ...

What I know about Aristotle I’ve learned from Edward Feser’s books, and about Plato from Dominic O’Meara’s introduction to Plotinus. Here’s something ...

Yeah, my OP is all within the context of their thought. There are Platonic and Aristotelian arguments for the divine intellect though; it’s not just a...

Because the forms exist within the divine intellect, which is eternal. From what I understand this is the case with both Platonism and Aristotelianism...

Are the reasonable approved by Terrapin because they are reasonable, or are they reasonable because approved by Terrapin?

Fair.

Is this not the same or very similar to noting the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic final causes? Because I have heard/read him make mention...

Here’s something from Edward Feser’s book on Aquinas. It clarifies the distinction between matter and form (substance and properties) very well I’d sa...

So there appears to be an irony in that the objection being made against Aristotelian metaphysics here is actually the justification for Aristotelian ...

My understanding is that the notion of a substance without properties serves to demonstrate that such a thing cannot exist, and it’s that which makes ...

I haven’t read any Plato directly, but here’s something from a book I have on Plotinus (a neoplatonist): From what I understand the soul is diverted f...

I didn’t say you were. It’s what follows from you implicitly answering ‘no’ to my previous question. Yes. When religious beliefs conflict with science...

So implicitly your answer is “no”. And therefore as long as religion has no input on scientific questions (how old is the earth?), and science has no ...

Providing mathematics has no input on fashion trends (and vice versa), could there be a contradiction?

Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics?

Witty and insightful, thank you.

I’ve brought up the Kalam Cosmological Argument before with you. WLC uses scientific evidence to back up its second premise, the first premise is back...

I agree, but that’s also the case with positive statements: “The cat is on the mat” is impossible to prove in practice in the same way the negative st...

I agree. But then there doesn’t appear to be anything about negatives qua negatives that makes them impossible to prove; but you seem to have acknowle...

I don’t see how that’s the case. “The cat is not on the mat” - why is that statement impossible to prove? Surely it’s just a matter of observing that ...

I think it can teach more than it’s typically given credit for, but either way I’m fine keeping that particular proclivity.

I don’t believe our minds (immaterial in my view) are part only of the phenomenal world. At least I think the reasoning is something along those lines...

I accept those are truths, yeah. I just think their truth is based on their participation in the transcendental truth. I guess I think all definitions...

Bloody hell mate. Well being threatened is quite unpleasant, even anonymously across the internet, so I will leave you alone now and ask you do the sa...

Is it? Am I? Do I? Don’t I? Do I? Do you? Won’t you? Are they? Is it? Don’t you? Don’t I? Perhaps the meanings of my words are totally different to yo...

Yes, but our judgements in my view cannot coherently be described as “truth”, but only true or false. You’re always left with something to justify. Wh...

It’s not that I like my objective truth (although I do); it’s that you’re left without an explanation of truth unless it is objective. You end up asse...

And this would mean so long as the fact is objective, the proposition is objectively true?

I thought you were evading the question (of the regress). It does seem to be the case that if truth is only in the mind there isn’t a foundational rea...

Yeah. You’re just axe-grinding against ‘religion’. It’s understandable, not wanting to believe in God, but there’s really no need pretending people wh...

I actually take facts to be true things, since I don’t see a problem with that (that analytic philosophers say otherwise I don’t take to be a problem)...

Maybe it’s easier because you think you can do no wrong. The parents are feeding rat poison to their children. The children are dying. The parents, ho...

I think my objection still stands. I understand you as saying a proposition is true when, in reality, its subject (the cat) corresponds to its predica...

There’s an obvious reply to this, but there’s no point making it if you can’t figure it out yourself.

This strikes me as prevarication. I can’t see where it answers the problem of there being an explanatory regress, which in effect means there is no fo...

Prejudice: Vagueness (and prejudice): I’ve answered your questions. The only conclusion I’ve drawn is it’s very possible legal guns make people safer....

So you’re suspicious for a bunch of vague reasons to do with your obvious prejudice. Great. If they’re people who shouldn’t have guns in the first pla...

Read it again you tendentious nitwit.