[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
ja, sure, but how do you know? :p[/quote]
Sometimes I make these jokes in my head, while I’m in public. I’m sure people find it strange when I laugh by myself.[/quote]
Here is a fun trick to do in an elevator, if there are only two people, take a step closer to the other person, but don’t look at them or acknowledge them in anyway.
[quote]kamui wrote:because the so-called “greater good” is actually a lesser evil.[/quote]I don’t know if this was to me?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< However, I’ll point this out I disagree absolutely that the ends can ever justify the means. [/quote]The ends can never justify sin.
[/quote]I’m not following.[/quote]I was pretty much agreeing with you. There may be some ends that would motivate me to employ means I normally wouldn’t, but never can the violation of God’s revealed will to us be justified by ANYTHING.
[quote]pat wrote:[quote]kamui wrote:because the so-called “greater good” is actually a lesser evil.[/quote]Technically yes. Everything short of an absolute good, is a lesser evil. That’s the ol’ glass half empty view! [/quote]I wish I could ask you both to explain this further Pat and to also explain what stops you from viewing this as anything short of absolute evil being a lesser good. Aside from just liking it that way of course.
[quote]pat wrote:[quote]kamui wrote:because the so-called “greater good” is actually a lesser evil.[/quote]Technically yes. Everything short of an absolute good, is a lesser evil. That’s the ol’ glass half empty view! [/quote]I wish I could ask you both to explain this further Pat and to also explain what stops you from viewing this as anything short of absolute evil being a lesser good. Aside from just liking it that way of course.
[/quote]
I think it’s just semantics. I don’t want to speak for him, but 100 people dying in an accident instead of 10,000 is a greater good. Or, “lesser evil” since people are still dying–because of course if 0 people died that would be best. That’s how I read it anyways.
I didn’t wanna waste i-space with another thread so I thought I might try to revive this one with a question.
Does essence precede existence or vice versa?
I’d say the first one. I say so because I think the non-contingent first cause defines our purpose and meaning beyond the confines of time (part of the definition of non-contingent) and that our essence came before our physical universe. Considering the causal relations in the universe and it’s constant seemingly orderly change, it’s difficult for me to imagine a creator that would leave our meaning or purpose totally up to us or only do it on the fly after we came to be.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I didn’t wanna waste i-space with another thread so I thought I might try to revive this one with a question.
Does essence precede existence or vice versa?
I’d say the first one. I say so because I think the non-contingent first cause defines our purpose and meaning beyond the confines of time (part of the definition of non-contingent) and that our essence came before our physical universe. Considering the causal relations in the universe and it’s constant seemingly orderly change, it’s difficult for me to imagine a creator that would leave our meaning or purpose totally up to us or only do it on the fly after we came to be.[/quote]
Short answer. Yes.
Shorter answer, but more correct. No.
You have come to the right thread by the way.
Let me explain further. It matters what you’re referring to. IN all but ONE instance the answer to your question is the essence precedes existence. Aristotle and Aquinas both affirm this.
However, in one instance alone, there is something that neither essence and existence preceded the other, because with said thing, they are the same thing. Nevertheless, in all other things essence and existence are separate with existence being preceded by essence.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I didn’t wanna waste i-space with another thread so I thought I might try to revive this one with a question.
Does essence precede existence or vice versa?
I’d say the first one. I say so because I think the non-contingent first cause defines our purpose and meaning beyond the confines of time (part of the definition of non-contingent) and that our essence came before our physical universe. Considering the causal relations in the universe and it’s constant seemingly orderly change, it’s difficult for me to imagine a creator that would leave our meaning or purpose totally up to us or only do it on the fly after we came to be.[/quote]
Short answer. Yes.
Shorter answer, but more correct. No.
You have come to the right thread by the way.
Let me explain further. It matters what you’re referring to. IN all but ONE instance the answer to your question is the essence precedes existence. Aristotle and Aquinas both affirm this.
However, in one instance alone, there is something that neither essence and existence preceded the other, because with said thing, they are the same thing. Nevertheless, in all other things essence and existence are separate with existence being preceded by essence. [/quote]
Are you referring to God in your last paragraph? If so, that makes a lot of sense. A being outside causality could only exist and have an essence and just leave it at that because questions regarding order without causality would be non-sensical.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Aristotle and Aquinas both affirm this. >>>[/quote]The happy couple =] Hopefully Thomas is in heaven and has been properly chastised by Paul concerning his clear renunciation of Aristotle in his warnings to the Corinthians.
The need for definitions abounds here, but insofar as the form at least of your statements Dearest Christopher? I agree. Of course the uniqueness you (and Aquinas) ascribe to God is not found in Aristotle. It’s not even found in scriptural purity in Augustine. Calvin more than Luther pushed that door open, the next couple generations of reformers turned the light on, especially the Westminster Assembly and Van Til walked into that room. Yet there it was all along. Staring us in the face from Genesis to Revelation. All this is philosophically speaking before you go thinkin I just handed you a club.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Considering the causal relations in the universe and it’s constant seemingly orderly change, it’s difficult for me to imagine a creator that would leave our meaning or purpose totally up to us or only do it on the fly after we came to be.[/quote]You are in my view headed in the right general direction Fletch. Contingency ANYwhere absolutely equals agnosticism EVERYwhere. God ultimately does not, indeed CANnot, think, say or do ANYthing in response to or contingent upon(which are the same thing) ANYthing external to His own eternal mind and will.
To be clear, I agree that with God alone no distinction between “essence” and “existence” is possible. With everything else their “essence” I suppose it could called, preexisted historic existence in the mind of the God who ad I say this is alone untrue if.
Whatever PREexisted means, because time as a succession of moments measured by the movement of matter in space are both creations of God and so the concept of “PRE” something else is a function of our creaturely finitude and concordant limitations.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Aristotle and Aquinas both affirm this. >>>[/quote]The happy couple =] Hopefully Thomas is in heaven and has been properly chastised by Paul concerning his clear renunciation of Aristotle in his warnings to the Corinthians.
The need for definitions abounds here, but insofar as the form at least of your statements Dearest Christopher? I agree. Of course the uniqueness you (and Aquinas) ascribe to God is not found in Aristotle. It’s not even found in scriptural purity in Augustine. Calvin more than Luther pushed that door open, the next couple generations of reformers turned the light on, especially the Westminster Assembly and Van Til walked into that room. Yet there it was all along. Staring us in the face from Genesis to Revelation. All this is philosophically speaking before you go thinkin I just handed you a club.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Considering the causal relations in the universe and it’s constant seemingly orderly change, it’s difficult for me to imagine a creator that would leave our meaning or purpose totally up to us or only do it on the fly after we came to be.[/quote]You are in my view headed in the right general direction Fletch. Contingency ANYwhere absolutely equals agnosticism EVERYwhere. God ultimately does not, indeed CANnot, think, say or do ANYthing in response to or contingent upon(which are the same thing) ANYthing external to His own eternal mind and will.
To be clear, I agree that with God alone no distinction between “essence” and “existence” is possible. With everything else their “essence” I suppose it could called, preexisted historic existence in the mind of the God who ad I say this is alone untrue if.
Whatever PREexisted means, because time as a succession of moments measured by the movement of matter in space are both creations of God and so the concept of “PRE” something else is a function of our creaturely finitude and concordant limitations.
[/quote]
Funny, I feel like I’ve read all of this somewhere else.
The issue I see with saying existence precedes essence is that it requires ourselves to give meaning and purpose and for that you have to eliminate the possibility of a 1st cause and you end up with the infinite regress problem.
So where does free will come into this. I’m familiar with your view Trib, basically Calvin’s predestination please correct if I’m wrong or if there’s more to it. But the way I see it, we do have free will and that’s our divine spark. Basically, people can will outcomes through manipulation of the natural world granted it’s a very weak will, almost infinitesimally small compared to God but not quite. I do think there is something to what Ephrem alluded to or explicitly said about choices often (or in his view always) being an illusion but I still can’t help but think there’s more to it than that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The issue I see with saying existence precedes essence is that it requires ourselves to give meaning and purpose and for that you have to eliminate the possibility of a 1st cause and you end up with the infinite regress problem.
So where does free will come into this. I’m familiar with your view Trib, basically Calvin’s predestination please correct if I’m wrong or if there’s more to it. But the way I see it, we do have free will and that’s our divine spark. Basically, people can will outcomes through manipulation of the natural world granted it’s a very weak will, almost infinitesimally small compared to God but not quite. I do think there is something to what Ephrem alluded to or explicitly said about choices often (or in his view always) being an illusion but I still can’t help but think there’s more to it than that. [/quote]
Freewill is rooted in choice and the implications are quite substantial if we eliminate it. Freewill is rooted in choice, but not only choice but to have been able to choose otherwise.
Basically, 'your ‘yes’ doesn’t matter if you didn’t have the option to say ‘no’. It’s freewill that precedes morality, for you are only culpable for the choices you freely made.
It doesn’t make sense to say choice is an illusion because it’s no more illusory than determinism. They each are equally probably an illusion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Aristotle and Aquinas both affirm this. >>>[/quote]The happy couple =] Hopefully Thomas is in heaven and has been properly chastised by Paul concerning his clear renunciation of Aristotle in his warnings to the Corinthians.
[/quote]
Except Paul wouldn’t do that, being a Stoic himself and using the means and ends of the pagan Stoics in his teachings and even using them to convert Stoics in the market place to Jesus.
You forget that Paul condemned pagan wisdom that went against Scripture, not all pagan philosophy. He condemned all of pagan philosophy as much as he meant that all men have sinned.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The issue I see with saying existence precedes essence is that it requires ourselves to give meaning and purpose and for that you have to eliminate the possibility of a 1st cause and you end up with the infinite regress problem.
So where does free will come into this. I’m familiar with your view Trib, basically Calvin’s predestination please correct if I’m wrong or if there’s more to it. But the way I see it, we do have free will and that’s our divine spark. Basically, people can will outcomes through manipulation of the natural world granted it’s a very weak will, almost infinitesimally small compared to God but not quite. I do think there is something to what Ephrem alluded to or explicitly said about choices often (or in his view always) being an illusion but I still can’t help but think there’s more to it than that. [/quote]
The issue with Calvinism that I have is that their philosophy doesn’t fit their physics. Basically, their philosophy doesn’t make sense when you look how the world is.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The issue I see with saying existence precedes essence is that it requires ourselves to give meaning and purpose and for that you have to eliminate the possibility of a 1st cause and you end up with the infinite regress problem.
So where does free will come into this. I’m familiar with your view Trib, basically Calvin’s predestination please correct if I’m wrong or if there’s more to it. But the way I see it, we do have free will and that’s our divine spark. Basically, people can will outcomes through manipulation of the natural world granted it’s a very weak will, almost infinitesimally small compared to God but not quite. I do think there is something to what Ephrem alluded to or explicitly said about choices often (or in his view always) being an illusion but I still can’t help but think there’s more to it than that. [/quote]
The issue with Calvinism that I have is that their philosophy doesn’t fit their physics. Basically, their philosophy doesn’t make sense when you look how the world is.[/quote]
‘how the world is’, what do you mean by that? I’ll be out for an hourish. ME reverse band box squats and romanian dl’s… I’m nervous already lol.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The issue I see with saying existence precedes essence is that it requires ourselves to give meaning and purpose and for that you have to eliminate the possibility of a 1st cause and you end up with the infinite regress problem.
So where does free will come into this. I’m familiar with your view Trib, basically Calvin’s predestination please correct if I’m wrong or if there’s more to it. But the way I see it, we do have free will and that’s our divine spark. Basically, people can will outcomes through manipulation of the natural world granted it’s a very weak will, almost infinitesimally small compared to God but not quite. I do think there is something to what Ephrem alluded to or explicitly said about choices often (or in his view always) being an illusion but I still can’t help but think there’s more to it than that. [/quote]
The issue with Calvinism that I have is that their philosophy doesn’t fit their physics. Basically, their philosophy doesn’t make sense when you look how the world is.[/quote]
‘how the world is’, what do you mean by that? I’ll be out for an hourish. ME reverse band box squats and romanian dl’s… I’m nervous already lol. [/quote]
If man doesn’t have free will he is barely higher than the animals. He runs on instinct.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Aristotle and Aquinas both affirm this. >>>[/quote]The happy couple =] Hopefully Thomas is in heaven and has been properly chastised by Paul concerning his clear renunciation of Aristotle in his warnings to the Corinthians.
[/quote]
Except Paul wouldn’t do that, being a Stoic himself and using the means and ends of the pagan Stoics in his teachings and even using them to convert Stoics in the market place to Jesus.
You forget that Paul condemned pagan wisdom that went against Scripture, not all pagan philosophy. He condemned all of pagan philosophy as much as he meant that all men have sinned. [/quote]You misunderstand and misappropriate both the passage in 1st Corinthians AND acts Chris. ANY philosophy for which the triune God is not the first all defining principle is automatically pagan. You ARE gonna get this.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< If man doesn’t have free will he is barely higher than the animals. He runs on instinct.[/quote]If man has a will free enough to change God’s then God is barely higher than the animals. You ARE gonna get this too.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< It doesn’t make sense to say choice is an illusion because it’s no more illusory than determinism. They each are equally probably an illusion. [/quote]This is so false it is almost beyond belief. All of Pat’s humanistic presumptions are exactly that. A pre-commitment to what man perceives as just and moral with the obligatory hatchet job on God that follows. God created in the image of man. The exact intellectual and moral consequence of the sin of our first parents who Pat and maybe Chris also don’t believe in.
