Building High-Performance Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I do know that almighty God speaking through His friend and servant Moses gave us the most seminal writings on ANYthing and EVERYthing including epistemology.


Can you go further than this?
You never answered this before so I'll ask it a different way. Which part of this statement:
God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and of himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, to, and upon them; He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and He has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or to them, whatever He pleases. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent of the creature; so that nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
do you feel is NOT contained in and birthed from this statement:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
I say that is the most epistemological/ontological/teleological/cogent and concise THEOlogical and hence comprehensively philosophical single statement ever committed to human language of any kind. Kamui, don't lemme down now.
I didn't know Moses was at Westminster.
Now you do. Oddly enough, Kamui can probably explain. I have a birthday party and work for the next few hours.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

groo wrote:
To be frank there is little or no attempt to rehabilitate.


Agree.

First of all though I would say deserved suffering isn't evil in my opinion.


It isn't a moral evil. I wasn't trying to argue that. Suffering can be good, or cause a greater good.

In cases of terrible inhumane crimes what does it take to make them right?


Well it has to proportionate to the Crime. So, you can't kill a guy ten times because he killed ten people.

To make someone whole? In many cases there is nothing that will make a victim or their family whole and in those cases killing the person responsible has sometimes been deemed acceptable by society.


I agree, here. Edward Feser makes a case for capital punishment.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse....

To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums.


Can you go a little further about what part of my suffering argument you're referring?

  Report
 

Fletch1986
Level 3

Join date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 4661

Just found this thread and Skimmed through all of it. Glad I got here before there were 40+ pages. A lot of good info on just 9.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
You're gonna have to bear with me here Chris. I have spent more time with you than anybody else ever that I have not met in person and many that I have. You are one of the most beloved people in my life. I am incapable of being more sincere than that. I am beyond honored that you would take the time and thought required to construct a post like the above in my thread. Where's the "but" right? <<<>> You are a very gifted kid Chris and I have no doubt that the God I love is working in your life. I would be proud to have you as my son. Like never before it is going to break my heart to have to disagree, strenuously, with very much (but not all) of what you've said in this post. I'm still learnin Christopher. Expect a more "charitable" Tiribulus. (within reason =] )

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...8&pageNo=10
Time =/= nice. And, I don't care about you being nice. Nice is not the same thing as charitable and it sure isn't the same thing as respectful. http://www.catholiceducation.o...
You said I was never nice to you. I'm more than nice you Christopher. I devote a rather substantial portion of my time and therefore life to you. More than anybody else here and more than most of the people in my offline life. As difficult as you're being lately it's still my joy. That's what a burden from the Lord is all about. Respect comes in a non standard package in situations like this Chris.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
You said I was never nice to you. I'm more than nice you Christopher. I devote a rather substantial portion of my time and therefore life to you. More than anybody else here and more than most of the people in my offline life. As difficult as you're being lately it's still my joy. That's what a burden from the Lord is all about. Respect comes in a non standard package in situations like this Chris.


Okay. Well, I'll be glad to continue to be respected.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
You said I was never nice to you. I'm more than nice you Christopher. I devote a rather substantial portion of my time and therefore life to you. More than anybody else here and more than most of the people in my offline life. As difficult as you're being lately it's still my joy. That's what a burden from the Lord is all about. Respect comes in a non standard package in situations like this Chris.
Okay. Well, I'll be glad to continue to be respected.
YOU are.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

groo wrote:<<< To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums. >>>
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Can you go a little further about what part of my suffering argument you're referring?
He's saying if you carry the reasoning that the greater good is accomplished by something so extremely bad as taking the life of a fellow man, you end up with a "ends always justifies the means" society? He's agreeing that the greater good IS accomplished by a just execution, but by rejecting the law of God is then left wondering at what point that principle ceases to function. Or, being Groo, wondering IF it ever does cease to function. =]

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
groo wrote:<<< To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums. >>>
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Can you go a little further about what part of my suffering argument you're referring?
He's saying if you carry the reasoning that the greater good is accomplished by something so extremely bad as taking the life of a fellow man, you end up with a "ends always justifies the means" society? He's agreeing that the greater good IS accomplished by a just execution, but by rejecting the law of God is then left wondering at what point that principle ceases to function. Or, being Groo, wondering IF it ever does cease to function. =]


To be clear, he's saying that if you take my argument further it is basically the ends justify the means?

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
groo wrote:<<< To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums. >>>
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Can you go a little further about what part of my suffering argument you're referring?
He's saying if you carry the reasoning that the greater good is accomplished by something so extremely bad as taking the life of a fellow man, you end up with a "ends always justifies the means" society? He's agreeing that the greater good IS accomplished by a just execution, but by rejecting the law of God is then left wondering at what point that principle ceases to function. Or, being Groo, wondering IF it ever does cease to function. =]


To be clear, he's saying that if you take my argument further it is basically the ends justify the means?
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
groo wrote:<<< To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums. >>>
Brother Chris wrote:<<< Can you go a little further about what part of my suffering argument you're referring?
He's saying if you carry the reasoning that the greater good is accomplished by something so extremely bad as taking the life of a fellow man, you end up with a "ends always justifies the means" society? He's agreeing that the greater good IS accomplished by a just execution, but by rejecting the law of God is then left wondering at what point that principle ceases to function. Or, being Groo, wondering IF it ever does cease to function. =]


To be clear, he's saying that if you take my argument further it is basically the ends justify the means?
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure.


Well, we'll wait.

However, I'll point this out I disagree absolutely that the ends can ever justify the means.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don't think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.


The science is empirical. Just sayin'. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.


Pat.. I dont' think we have to reduce science to any metaphysical foundations to have a vibrant science which deals with the natural world. Here i am think only of physics, chemistry and biology.. The human science would have a different methodology or many different methodologies because of the fact that human's are also subjects and just observing them as if they were objects of study in a laboratory like atoms or germs or two variables doesn't work to further our understanding of the complexity that we are.



Well, yes and no. The scientific method seems to operate fine as an empirical methodology, but the 'scientific method' itself is a metaphysical entity. It also depends on what your end game is. If you are trying to come up, say with a new rubber compound for tires, that's pretty much an empirical proposition. If you are trying to find out what the law behind electromagnetism is, that's a metaphysical proposition. In the latter, you can use empirical process as a guiding factor, but the proposition is a metaphysical one.


First the idea of a scientific method is problematic since there are the natural sciences and they have their own methodology and then there is the social science which has more than one methodology, and we have hermeneutics which is still another way to proceed in coming to an understanding about text, and communication.

The methodology, be it observational or experimental, or both, still functions on the same principals. You are trying to draw a correlation between two things that implies a causal relationship.

I don't see how the law of electromagnetism is a metaphysical proposition. Its stated and then its used to explain propositions about certain natural feature of the natural world. If there were examples of it being wrong it would be given up. Metaphysical propositions don't function in the same way.. But I don't know enough about it to really say anything substantive.


The action of electromagnetism is a physical phenemenon, the laws that govern the action are the metaphysical component. For every physical action, there are always 2 things present. The action and the reason for it.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

ephrem wrote:
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/...y_for_beginners

Perhaps moving pictures will help me digest these topics.


What ever works. Philosophy is based on it's core. Those tenets transcend. And if you are taking this step, then I say that's very big of you. It shows you never stop trying and that means a lot.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

Brother Chris wrote:<<< However, I'll point this out I disagree absolutely that the ends can ever justify the means.
The ends can never justify sin.

  Report
 

kamui
Level

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 1645

because the so-called "greater good" is actually a lesser evil.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< However, I'll point this out I disagree absolutely that the ends can ever justify the means.
The ends can never justify sin.


I'm not following.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

kamui wrote:
because the so-called "greater good" is actually a lesser evil.


Technically yes. Everything short of an absolute good, is a lesser evil.

That's the ol' glass half empty view!

  Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 258

pat wrote:
silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don't think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.


The science is empirical. Just sayin'. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.


Pat.. I dont' think we have to reduce science to any metaphysical foundations to have a vibrant science which deals with the natural world. Here i am think only of physics, chemistry and biology.. The human science would have a different methodology or many different methodologies because of the fact that human's are also subjects and just observing them as if they were objects of study in a laboratory like atoms or germs or two variables doesn't work to further our understanding of the complexity that we are.



Well, yes and no. The scientific method seems to operate fine as an empirical methodology, but the 'scientific method' itself is a metaphysical entity. It also depends on what your end game is. If you are trying to come up, say with a new rubber compound for tires, that's pretty much an empirical proposition. If you are trying to find out what the law behind electromagnetism is, that's a metaphysical proposition. In the latter, you can use empirical process as a guiding factor, but the proposition is a metaphysical one.


First the idea of a scientific method is problematic since there are the natural sciences and they have their own methodology and then there is the social science which has more than one methodology, and we have hermeneutics which is still another way to proceed in coming to an understanding about text, and communication.

The methodology, be it observational or experimental, or both, still functions on the same principals. You are trying to draw a correlation between two things that implies a causal relationship.

I don't see how the law of electromagnetism is a metaphysical proposition. Its stated and then its used to explain propositions about certain natural feature of the natural world. If there were examples of it being wrong it would be given up. Metaphysical propositions don't function in the same way.. But I don't know enough about it to really say anything substantive.


The action of electromagnetism is a physical phenemenon, the laws that govern the action are the metaphysical component. For every physical action, there are always 2 things present. The action and the reason for it.




Ok let me deal with the action of electromagnetism..... ( the other above statement first one needs more thought ....)

Lets take the physical action of running. I see a person running ok. Now my point was if i talk in terms of how his body is functioning, and his heart and and lungs are functioning i stay clear of a metaphysical explanation. Its functional. But if i ask why its functional, then i can see where a metaphysical explanation comes to play. That's my thinking there.
I don't need a philosophical explanation of the concept of functional to give a natural explanation. For me philosophy comes into play only when we have a problem over how to proceed.

  Report
 

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 11983

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.


ja, sure, but how do you know? :p

Speaking about metaphysics, epistemology, logic, or axiology as being a more important branch of philosophy than any of the others is pointless because they all rely on each other for points of distinction and to bring the totality of understanding to full light.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.


ja, sure, but how do you know? :p


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.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
pat wrote:
silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don't think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.


The science is empirical. Just sayin'. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.


Pat.. I dont' think we have to reduce science to any metaphysical foundations to have a vibrant science which deals with the natural world. Here i am think only of physics, chemistry and biology.. The human science would have a different methodology or many different methodologies because of the fact that human's are also subjects and just observing them as if they were objects of study in a laboratory like atoms or germs or two variables doesn't work to further our understanding of the complexity that we are.



Well, yes and no. The scientific method seems to operate fine as an empirical methodology, but the 'scientific method' itself is a metaphysical entity. It also depends on what your end game is. If you are trying to come up, say with a new rubber compound for tires, that's pretty much an empirical proposition. If you are trying to find out what the law behind electromagnetism is, that's a metaphysical proposition. In the latter, you can use empirical process as a guiding factor, but the proposition is a metaphysical one.


First the idea of a scientific method is problematic since there are the natural sciences and they have their own methodology and then there is the social science which has more than one methodology, and we have hermeneutics which is still another way to proceed in coming to an understanding about text, and communication.

The methodology, be it observational or experimental, or both, still functions on the same principals. You are trying to draw a correlation between two things that implies a causal relationship.

I don't see how the law of electromagnetism is a metaphysical proposition. Its stated and then its used to explain propositions about certain natural feature of the natural world. If there were examples of it being wrong it would be given up. Metaphysical propositions don't function in the same way.. But I don't know enough about it to really say anything substantive.


The action of electromagnetism is a physical phenemenon, the laws that govern the action are the metaphysical component. For every physical action, there are always 2 things present. The action and the reason for it.




Ok let me deal with the action of electromagnetism..... ( the other above statement first one needs more thought ....)

Lets take the physical action of running. I see a person running ok. Now my point was if i talk in terms of how his body is functioning, and his heart and and lungs are functioning i stay clear of a metaphysical explanation. Its functional. But if i ask why its functional, then i can see where a metaphysical explanation comes to play. That's my thinking there.
I don't need a philosophical explanation of the concept of functional to give a natural explanation. For me philosophy comes into play only when we have a problem over how to proceed.


Correct, what is happening is physical, why and sometimes how it's happening is metaphysical.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

Brother Chris wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.


ja, sure, but how do you know? :p


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.


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.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

kamui wrote:because the so-called "greater good" is actually a lesser evil.
I don't know if this was to me?

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< However, I'll point this out I disagree absolutely that the ends can ever justify the means.
The ends can never justify sin.
I'm not following.
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.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

pat wrote:
kamui wrote:because the so-called "greater good" is actually a lesser evil.
Technically yes. Everything short of an absolute good, is a lesser evil. That's the ol' glass half empty view!
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.

  Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 9207

Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:
kamui wrote:because the so-called "greater good" is actually a lesser evil.
Technically yes. Everything short of an absolute good, is a lesser evil. That's the ol' glass half empty view!
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.



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.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16189

I don't think that's what Kamui means anyway. I've been VERY patient btw Aragorn. Come on now. You know I have. =]

  Report