|
Anxiety
|
 |
« on: July 08, 2009, 12:57:49 AM » |
|
In this thread we will discuss metaphysics.
As with any philosophy, it's usually easiest to start from the beginning. Fundamental questions arise in any such discussion and formal analysis usually start with the following problems:
What is? What is not?
If we cannot answer these questions, then what can we answer?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 02:34:56 PM » |
|
Go ahead!! Shoot!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2009, 10:34:47 PM » |
|
Personally, I have no certainty about what is or isn't. I can make some speculations however. This what I'm currently inclined to believe:
1) Things cannot be and not be at the same time.
2) All things are material and physical.
3) All things are in a constant state of becoming due to entropy or a similar force.
4) We talk about these things and describe them conventionally in a Newtonian fashion because of the limits of our senses even though we know quite well that they do not behave as such (see: Quantum Mechanics).
5) #4 lends evidence for the limitations of our inquiries.
6) Describing things practically (see: #4) is all we're good at instinctively and socially. This may be due to the fact that this is all we need to function and survive biologically.
That's a very superficial run down of how I think things are.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 10:38:08 PM by Anxiety »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2009, 07:59:49 AM » |
|
I don't know much about metaphysics brother. 1) Things cannot be and not be at the same time.
Aahhh,the law of non-contradiction. Gotta love it! Then do you agree also with the law of identity as well as the law of excluded middle? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2009, 02:20:07 PM » |
|
Law of identity (no): We identify things Newtonianly without recognizing that they are in a constant state of change so A = A is never true except at the instant of identifying it. This is a problem because instants don't exist in any real sense.
Law of excluded middle: I agree with this in so far as I agree with the law of non-contradiction for practical purposes. We may assign ambiguous descriptors to things and even talk about unreal things and things that do not exist. This may very well be a product of our language rather than a testament to reality.
I assert whenever we talk about real things they are always material and have a physical component.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Global Moderator
Full Member
 Offline
Posts: 562
Smile!!!
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2009, 03:20:31 PM » |
|
I, obviously, am not good at the more "philosophical" discussions, but I was just wondering where love, happiness,etc. fits in to material and physical components?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2009, 03:33:01 PM » |
|
Law of identity (no): We identify things Newtonianly without recognizing that they are in a constant state of change so A = A is never true except at the instant of identifying it. This is a problem because instants don't exist in any real sense.
So an apple is not an apple and is in constant change? You contradicted yourself when you said instants don't exist then you used instant to identify something. Does it exist or doesn't it exist? I assert whenever we talk about real things they are always material and have a physical component. I love my wife! That is a real thing that isn't material or has a physical component. But we know when we love someone it's true. How do you explain that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 06:07:46 PM » |
|
So an apple is not an apple and is in constant change? You contradicted yourself when you said instants don't exist then you used instant to identify something. Does it exist or doesn't it exist?
I love my wife! That is a real thing that isn't material or has a physical component. But we know when we love someone it's true. How do you explain that?
The basic arguments between empiricism and rationalism.  To illustrate: Anxiety is correct in a rational form - an apple is not an apple until you can perceive it. Have someone place any kind of an object in a dark room, then ask you to describe an apple by explaining the color, flavor, type, aroma. Is the object an apple? Don't know, but in your mind it does exist. Our experiences using our senses then identifies the taste, color, smell, feel, and how we categorized the apple. At that instant that the stimuli reaches our brain center, then he is correct. It exists, before then, it was unknown and did not exist. For you could not see it, feel it, taste it, smell it - only you were told that an object (apple) was in the room. Love- that's an experience and does it exist outside of our senses? Possibly, as we can measure, dissect the chemical and electrical stimuli that occur in our bodies during a measurable moment and capture that information, translate it into a formula and duplicate it. At this moment in time, I don't believe that we can call it a thing, for it doesn't survive outside of the body and mind. You can't duplicate it, pick it up except as a concept. Side note - a school friend of my son is currently working at Duke University in the medical department on a computer program that will duplicate all the symptoms of an epileptic seizure so that it can be studied rationally in hopes to find a cure for seizures. Lots of patients, lots of measurable moments, lots of frustration trying to work out the mathematics to cause a random breakdown of electrical pulses in the brain to simulate the exact conditions. I believe that Kant the philosopher was probably on the correct track - all information can be both rational and empirical. That to use both is legitimate. The bringing together of the different philosophies will as Feynman would say, "Everything tends to look more and more complex, until you have an integration that makes the overall view more simple". I can theorize about an apple or any other object without actually seeing it, ie. quantum physics, analyze an emotion such as love and recreate it mathmatically. Yet, both exist along side of rationalism through our senses and experience. But the human being is a very unique biological machine. It seems to be able to put the two avenues of rational and empirical together wonderfully without conflict. By using both philosophies to extrapolate the indicators into a manner that we can understand easily. Love? do we really know? Or is it Lust that turns into interdependence and mating after the initial time frame wears off? Who knows? Answer: The Shadow Knows.  :  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 07:47:48 PM » |
|
So an apple is not an apple and is in constant change? You contradicted yourself when you said instants don't exist then you used instant to identify something. Does it exist or doesn't it exist? No, I used the term instant to point out a possible flaw in the law of identity and then said that it doesn't exist in the real sense. I love my wife! That is a real thing that isn't material or has a physical component. But we know when we love someone it's true. How do you explain that? Your wife isn't material? I, obviously, am not good at the more "philosophical" discussions, but I was just wondering where love, happiness,etc. fits in to material and physical components? Where do immaterial components fit? Have you ever done drugs, legal or non-legal? Let's assume that you have. Did your feelings change? Maybe the amount of pain you were experiencing decreased? Where does that fit in? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2009, 10:24:33 PM » |
|
No, I used the term instant to point out a possible flaw in the law of identity and then said that it doesn't exist in the real sense.
What are you talking about? There is no flaw in the law of identity! An Apple is an Apple. In other words, something is what it is. If something exists, it has a nature, an essence. This also means that anything that exists has characteristics. We recognize what something is by observing its characteristic. You know that a tree is a tree because you see its branches, it's leads, its trunk, etc. Logical absolutes are logical truths that are absolute. In other words, they are always true, everywhere, all the time. Your wife isn't material?
That's not what I meant! Love isn't material. It is true that I love my wife. This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, a logical absolute truth. When I pray and talk to God I feel His love and presense in my heart. God is love!! 1 John 4:7-12 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 10:33:45 PM by Lee2216 »
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2009, 11:33:36 PM » |
|
Undoubtedly saying an apple is an apple is fine for all practical purposes. In reality what you call an apple at one point in 'time' (for lack of a better word) is no longer the same apple, thus there is a severe limitation in our practical identifications.
Why isn't love material? Have you ever known something immaterial to be manifested from something material? Can you point to one example?
If you wife didn't exist or you didn't exist could the love between you exist?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2009, 08:10:03 AM » |
|
In reality what you call an apple at one point in 'time' (for lack of a better word) is no longer the same apple, thus there is a severe limitation in our practical identifications.
Dude!!! What are you talking about? In REALITY an apple is an apple it's never going to turn into a bananna. I don't know what reality you live in! My Lord what are they teaching in college these days? Obviously not common sense! I'm sorry I'm not trying to be condescending. This is what God says! See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2009, 10:30:14 AM » |
|
Why isn't love material? Because love is emotion! Let's use this analogy. We can't see the wind as it's blowing on us but we can feel it so we no it's there. This is also true with God and love. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2009, 01:00:21 PM » |
|
In reality what you call an apple at one point in 'time' (for lack of a better word) is no longer the same apple, thus there is a severe limitation in our practical identifications.
Dude!!! What are you talking about? In REALITY an apple is an apple it's never going to turn into a bananna. I don't know what reality you live in! My Lord what are they teaching in college these days? Obviously not common sense! I'm sorry I'm not trying to be condescending. This is what God says! See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8You are familiar with the concept of decaying, right? Let's say you leave a freshly picked apple outside in the sun for a few months. It becomes rotted and eaten by other things. Would we still call this an apple? Perhaps we might call it a rotten apple to denote its distinctiveness from what we commonly think of as an apple. The question remains, when does an apple no longer become an apple? Again for all practical purposes --or as you put it in the context of "common sense" --we can use the term apple and it works fine for our purposes. In reality, the apple merely shares the same characteristics of other things we've also decided to call apples. Even if the apple didn't go through a decaying state and a loss of energy and it moved it still wouldn't be the same apple as when you first perceived it. It would have different forces exerted on it and be at a different place in time space. What you describe at one point isn't the same thing you're describing in the next. It may share the some of the same characteristics, but it is never exactly the same. Also: would you even known about Christ if it weren't for human tradition? You're so quick to admonish with so little examination. Why isn't love material? Because love is emotion! Let's use this analogy. We can't see the wind as it's blowing on us but we can feel it so we no it's there. This is also true with God and love. Wind is material and physical, I sincerely hope you're not suggesting it isn't. Emotions are a bit trickier. Why do you think emotion is immaterial and nonphysical? I'm not denying the existence of these things, I just think they are created and possessed in entirely physical bodies (ourselves). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 01:03:47 PM by Anxiety »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2009, 03:08:43 PM » |
|
You are familiar with the concept of decaying, right? Let's say you leave a freshly picked apple outside in the sun for a few months. It becomes rotted and eaten by other things. Would we still call this an apple? Perhaps we might call it a rotten apple to denote its distinctiveness from what we commonly think of as an apple. I would call it a rotten apple. But it's still an apple not a bananna or watermelon etc. In reality, the apple merely shares the same characteristics of other things we've also decided to call apples. What other things have the same characteristics as an apple? Also: would you even known about Christ if it weren't for human tradition? How else would I know about Jesus other than thru human's? The Holy Spirit is indwelt within every believer so in essence God is reaching out to people thru other people in that manner. God's revelation was to man. Are you implying that I have been "brainwashed" thru the tradition of the church? Wind is material and physical, I sincerely hope you're not suggesting it isn't. Emotions are a bit trickier. Why do you think emotion is immaterial and nonphysical? I'm not denying the existence of these things, I just think they are created and possessed in entirely physical bodies (ourselves). I agree with that. I think emotion is immaterial because you can't weigh it or taste it etc. but when you are angry you may pound your fist on the desk or when you are happy you may hug someone so there is the physical aspect to emotion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
