EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]kamui wrote:
Interesting quote.

let’s break it :slight_smile:

I agree. And i would add that it has NOT death, infamy and evil in itself.
Because, strictly speaking, these things doesn’t exist, they have no positive definition (they are a “lack of” something : lack of glory, lack of life, lack of goodness, etc).

Yep. It’s the very definition of being non contingent.

[quote]
he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things;[/quote]

Yep. All contingent things, all contingent events ultimately and necessarily come from this non contingent being.

[quote]
and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth.[/quote]

I can accept this formulation if and only if we interpret the words “dominion” and “whatsoever himself pleaseth” as metaphorical.
The anthropomorphic projection i reject start right there.

[quote]
In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.[/quote]

The non-contingent being is the actual foundation of all potential knowledge. If we are able to know anything, it’s only because this non-contingent being is (at least partially) intelligible.

So kamui, do you believe this Logos, for want of a better word, created humans as special and distinct from the rest of creation? And could you infer a reason for its creating us or for creating anything at all?

For example, I can think of rational reasons the Christian God would have created, but am not certain what “motivation” (again, maybe not the appropriate word) an impersonal Logos would have for doing such.

Any ideas here?

222

Or, to conjecture an answer to my own question, are we and all of creation, perhaps, the natural, unavoidable product of this intellect. In other words, it thinks us, therefore we are, and there is no “willing” us into existence, as such. Rather, we just cannot help but exist…?

Not sure if this is anywhere close to the mark or not, as I’ve honestly never encountered this line of reasoning before and I find it fascinating.

223

[quote]
So kamui, do you believe this Logos, for want of a better word, created humans as special and distinct from the rest of creation? And could you infer a reason for its creating us or for creating anything at all?[/quote]

Short answer : no, and no.

Metaphorical answer :
Reality is an infinite paper and the Logos an infinitely patient and infinitely skilled origami master.

Longer answer :
Every thing is a part of the Logos.
Every thing, including animal, vegetal and mineral.
If one thing exist, this thing necessarily “contains” at least 1 information (consciously or not, it doesn’t matter for now). And all these informations are, by nature and definition, parts of the Logos.

It’s true for a human and it’s true for a rock.
the quantity and quality of the informations may vary, but the ontological nature is ultimately the same in both cases.
No “radical” division, distinction or separation.

And since the logos has no will, he has no “purpose”.

it doesn’t mean that our existence have no meaning.
Quite the contrary : if the logos has no purpose, “he” still has an infinite quantity of meanings and reasons.

224

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Or, to conjecture an answer to my own question, are we and all of creation, perhaps, the natural, unavoidable product of this intellect. In other words, it thinks us, therefore we are, and there is no “willing” us into existence, as such. Rather, we just cannot help but exist…?

Not sure if this is anywhere close to the mark or not, as I’ve honestly never encountered this line of reasoning before and I find it fascinating. [/quote]

it’s actually pretty close to the mark.

when people first encounter this “line of reasoning”, they often immediatly think : “eastern philosophies”.
Actually, it’s very old, and it’s very “western”. You just need to search it before christian times (stoicism) or outside (Spinoza).

Actually the whole Ethics of Spinoza start with the idea of a non-contingent thing, and continue from there.

225

1500×1000 299 KB

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I’ve honestly never encountered this line of reasoning before and I find it fascinating. [/quote]This is somewhat along the lines of the belief of the Church of Christ, Scientist or Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy fame. They deny the actual existence of matter altogether (gnosticism) along with anything evil or negative. I used to have this exact edition of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< What prevent me to see Him, in your opinion ?[/quote]This is what is keeping you from acknowledging Him.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I won’t say that any “service” are due to it nor that it “requires” anything from us. >>>[/quote]You want a “god” that substantially answers your intellectual longings, but leaves you “free” to do what you want. The rest is in support of this central motivation. He is a projection of yourself. Created by you in your own image. The Christian view would say that this is not freedom. It is slavery disguised as freedom. I do not wish that we become unfriendly, but I am not able to maintain my beliefs without saying that to you.

There is much more, but I have to get ready for work.

226

I don’t deny the existence of matter, and, unlike gnostics, i don’t deny the “value” of the Creation and i don’t see knowledge as a key to transcend it.

[quote]
You want a “god” that substantially answers your intellectual longings, but leaves you “free” to do what you want. The rest is in support of this central motivation. He is a projection of yourself. Created by you in your own image. The Christian view would say that this is not freedom. It is slavery disguised as freedom. I do not wish that we become unfriendly, but I am not able to maintain my beliefs without saying that to you.

There is much more, but I have to get ready for work[/quote]

I can see why you would say that. But it’s not true.

When i say “he doesn’t require anything”, it absolutely doesn’t mean that i’m free to do what i want.

Every bit of my being is bound to its law.
And in my eyes, being free is nothing more and nothing less than lucidly and joyfully acknowledging, acccepting and respecting its law.

It’s just that this law is not a will.
There is no “counsel”, no “command”.
Only facts.

And i’m not speaking about physical and scientific laws here.

This epistemology and this ontology lead me to an axiology that imply moral absolutism.
That’s why i naturally side with christians more often than not about moral, social and cultural issues. Even if i have slightly different rationale.

The logos law may be as harsh as your God’s Will.
If anything, it would be harsher actually, since the Logos doesn’t answer any prayer and doesn’t leave you any hope.

My usual, spontaneous reaction when i read christian texts is not “heck, i would have to renounce my polygamous habits. It’s too hard to be true”. It’s rather “Heaven ? it’s too good to be true”.

Here lies the main difference between our respective ethos.
For a christian, hope is a fundamental virtue.
For me, it’s a dangerous vice.

227

I worded that wrong. I didn’t mean to imply that you deny the existence of matter. Sorry. I actually meant that part in contrast to what you seem to be saying. I was talking mainly about the idea of our reality being the thoughts of a universal mind. And their denial of evil and pain stemming from this mind. In their view those don’t exist at all except in the illusions of those not redeemed(enlightened) enough to think beyond them. In a nutshell. Been a long time.

We have a lot to talk about in the rest, but I am at work and my rushing through posts has already gotten me in to trouble.

228

Tirib, your last two posts in this thread are much more friendly to the eyes and mind than the walls of lyricism that needed to be waded through earlier. Your points are much clearer and to the point. Thanks.

229

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Tirib, your last two posts in this thread are much more friendly to the eyes and mind than the walls of lyricism that needed to be waded through earlier. Your points are much clearer and to the point. Thanks.[/quote]

x2

230

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< When i say “he doesn’t require anything”, it absolutely doesn’t mean that i’m free to do what i want. >>>[/quote] What is an example of something you want to do, but don’t, or vice versa. AND how do you know it is according to the desire of this principle that neither wills nor requires? [quote]kamui wrote:<<< its law. <<<>>> my eyes >>>[/quote]Please tell me the difference and how you know.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< And I’m not speaking about physical and scientific laws here. >>>[/quote]I understand this part.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< This epistemology and this ontology lead me to an axiology that imply moral absolutism. >>>[/quote]How so and again, how do you know. Further, if this morality is absolute, it applies to me too. Where do I find this morality so I can know it as well?[quote]kamui wrote:<<< That’s why i naturally side with christians more often than not about moral, social and cultural issues. Even if i have slightly different rationale. >>>[/quote]I’ll leave this for now.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< The logos law may be as harsh as your God’s Will. If anything, it would be harsher actually, since the Logos doesn’t answer any prayer and doesn’t leave you any hope. >>>[/quote]Does this “logos” communicate in any way with mankind? If so how and if not how do you know anything about “him”.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< My usual, spontaneous reaction when i read christian texts is not “heck, i would have to renounce my polygamous habits. It’s too hard to be true”. It’s rather “Heaven? it’s too good to be true”.>>>[/quote]If you were to come to believe that this logos were in fact my God and that He would take you into His presence with His very Spirit dwelling inside of you so that you would live, like REALLY live, with Him for all eternity without end. Pure, perfect, blissful, holy love, joy and peace like you cannot possibly imagine, would you trade ALL that your present life is for that? If I could prove it I’d bet one trillion francs that I know your answer to this question.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Here lies the main difference between our respective ethos.
For a christian, hope is a fundamental virtue. For me, it’s a dangerous vice. >>>[/quote]It pains me to hear you talk like this my friend. Truly. You will say no, but that is despair. It need not be so.

Ya know what? One step at a time. Please concentrate, if you would, on this question for now.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< its law. <<<>>> my eyes >>>[/quote]Please tell me the difference and how you know. Yes, were arguing now =] It needn’t be nasty, but we are gonna butt heads.

231

I spent an over an hour tonight reading this http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/298_m_year_old_forest_found?id=5098845&pageNo=0 thread. I repeat. Epistemology is THE key to everything. There a few guys over there I would LOVE to get involved over here. SteelyD would top my list. Anonym would be right up there too. That Matt guy as well.

232

In no particular order :

Despair is a vice too, for the very same reason.
The more lucid we are, the closer we are from “him”.

Our intellects are parts of its intellect.
When we are able to hush up all our feelings, beliefs, opinions, attachments, temptations, delusions, parasite ideas, etc, we are able to know what it knows, and to realize what it his.
Then, the only way we are left with is to harmonize our will (and our acts) with it.

I regularly train to perceive things like this, from its perspective, so to speak.
That’s why i have forbidden myself both hope and despair, for example.

The whole world is its “holy book”.
There is a spider on the wall of my room right now.
I could ignore it.
Or I could find it awfully hairy.
Or i could realize that it’s the unique result of several billions years of its work, and then i would see the face of the Logos in the eight eyes of this ugly arachnid.

you already know it.
And you know it for the same reason and in the same way you know anything else, or anything at all.

Granted, it’s not really an answer.
But in order to elaborate, i would have to explain how we can actually derive an axiology from an ontology (and an epistemology) without any “is/ought” fallacy. I will leave this for now.

[quote]
If you were to come to believe that this logos were in fact my God and that He would take you into His presence with His very Spirit dwelling inside of you so that you would live, like REALLY live, with Him for all eternity without end. Pure, perfect, blissful, holy love, joy and peace like you cannot possibly imagine, would you trade ALL that your present life is for that? If I could prove it I’d bet one trillion francs that I know your answer to this question.[/quote]

If i were to come to believe that, then i suppose i would definitely trade all that my present life is.

But that would imply that my reluctance to abandon my current life doesn’t prevent me to come to believe that.
And i can’t affirm that.

233

Before we go further, tell me what you think I mean by “ALL that your present life is”.

The fallacy of advancing ought from is, is even tougher when we are less than certainly clear on what our is actually is. It is even tougher still when your non contingent “is” neither wills nor requires. Both statements of the prerequisite “ought” necessary for morality to exist at all, but which are denied out of hand. (anybody follow that =[ )

Oh well. the “your life” question if you would please? I have to go to bed for now mon ami.

234

In the scenario you presented, what would really matter is what God himself means.
I suppose He would require me to abandon most of what i think i know.

I agree.

But here, i disagree.
For morality to exist at all, you don’t need a specific direction determined by a transcendant will.
You “just” need a map that let you know which things possess an intrinsic value and which doesn’t.

235

Kamui I typed out answers, but I just got in and I’m half asleep. Didn’t like my answers. Have to wait til hopefully tomorrow buddy.

236

[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< [i]There is no need for a creator - Dan Dennett >>>[/quote]If you see Dan, invite him to this thread Sparky will ya please? He is JUST my kinda guy.

237

[quote]kamui wrote:

In the scenario you presented, what would really matter is what God himself means.
I suppose He would require me to abandon most of what i think i know.

I agree.

But here, i disagree.
For morality to exist at all, you don’t need a specific direction determined by a transcendant will.
You “just” need a map that let you know which things possess an intrinsic value and which doesn’t. [/quote]Ok, cheap simple response because I’ve been in the middle of 10 things and giving short responses in other threads. I don’t want to leave you hanging another day. Where is this map so I can see it and what happens if someone else cannot or will not see it. Most importantly what is the GREATEST value and therefore ought? Is it attainable. Ever? What does it produce in you if pursued? If not?

238

As a Thomist, I declare in my consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or practical assumptions, but a thing attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God.

The modern man’s idea of the main metaphysical question, if we can prove the primacy act of recognition of reality is real, is a non-sequitar…though I have dealt with it before for practical reasons. The reason…

I recognize almost instantly, which my brother skeptics have come to recognize, that a man must either answer the question affirmatively or you beg the question always. Meaning you can never answer any question, never ask any question, never be intellectual again. You can be a fundamental skeptic, but that is all; not even an apologist for your own philosophy.

“If a man feels that all the movements of his own mind are meaningless, then his mind is meaningless, and he is meaningless; and it does not mean anything to attempt to discover his meaning.” - GKC

Thomas Aquinas began by answering the question, “Is There anything?” by answering, “Yes.” if he had answered the negative, that would not be the beginning, but the end. It really is common sense.

There is no philosophy, no philosophers, no thinkers, thought, anything; or there is a connection between mind and reality. If you don’t understand, I suggest giving a small time to study the idea of Ens in Medieval philosophy.

But, Ens means eggs are really just eggs.

239

It is so wonderful to see you here again Chris. I haven’t been able to get back to your facebook page since the other night. I apologize if I left you hangin. My now official congrats and props for finishing the Summa Theologica. As I say one of the most important and influential works of human thought in all of history. When I have been asked (and I have been) who I viewed as the most intelligent men of all time, Aquinas always makes my list. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Thomas Aquinas began by answering the question, “Is There anything?” >>>[/quote]And therein was Thomas’s foundational error. HE began by asking and HE began by answering. Under the false pretense that HE was in any way qualified to have an opinion on anything apart from the creator God. Autonomous man right from square one.

Paul began by ASSUMING, as does the bible itself, that the God he knew, served and loved not only existed but that He was this explanation for everything. “In the beginning God…”. Not “is there anything and what’s MY answer?”. Aquinas saw himself as intelligible to himself before he ever began even mentioning God. The very question “is there anything?” is already intellectually idolatrous. Contingent beings can never begin with a question. Beginning with a question presupposes that We are able to discern reality ourselves in independence from our designer and betrays the fact that that alleged “beginning” is not actually the beginning at all. The beginning is the presupposition of our own autonomy. The question is a symptom.

No, I begin by KNOWING before all else that the triune God of the holy scriptures “is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things” and that “in his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.”. That is how Christians begin. Even though many don’t consciously realize it in those terms.

In point of fact that’s how everybody begins, including unbelievers. They just spend their every waking moment trying to escape it. Aristotle sunk Aquinas Chris. They both began on the same foundation and proceeded to the exact same primary conclusion. Aquinas was actually less consistent because he attempted to proceed further to a Christian floor that could not be supported by the rest of his pagan Greek foundation and building. This is EXACTLY what 1st Corinthians 1 was all about.

240

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is so wonderful to see you here again Chris. I haven’t been able to get back to your facebook page since the other night. I apologize if I left you hangin. My now official congrats and props for finishing the Summa Theologica. As I say one of the most important and influential works of human thought in all of history. When I have been asked (and I have been) who I viewed as the most intelligent men of all time, Aquinas always makes my list. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Thomas Aquinas began by answering the question, “Is There anything?” >>>[/quote]And therein was Thomas’s foundational error. HE began by asking and HE began by answering. Under the false pretense that HE was in any way qualified to have an opinion on anything apart from the creator God. Autonomous man right from square one.

Paul began by ASSUMING, as does the bible itself, that the God he knew, served and loved not only existed but that He was this explanation for everything. “In the beginning God…”. Not “is there anything and what’s MY answer?”. Aquinas saw himself as intelligible to himself before he ever began even mentioning God. The very question “is there anything?” is already intellectually idolatrous. Contingent beings can never begin with a question. Beginning with a question presupposes that We are able to discern reality ourselves in independence from our designer and betrays the fact that that alleged “beginning” is not actually the beginning at all. The beginning is the presupposition of our own autonomy. The question is a symptom.

No, I begin by KNOWING before all else that the triune God of the holy scriptures “is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things” and that “in his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.”. That is how Christians begin. Even though many don’t consciously realize it in those terms.

In point of fact that’s how everybody begins, including unbelievers. They just spend their every waking moment trying to escape it. Aristotle sunk Aquinas Chris. They both began on the same foundation and proceeded to the exact same primary conclusion. Aquinas was actually less consistent because he attempted to proceed further to a Christian floor that could not be supported by the rest of his pagan Greek foundation and building. This is EXACTLY what 1st Corinthians 1 was all about. [/quote]

Did you read everything I just wrote?