Aristotle Physics and Metaphysics

  • Thread starter Thread starter StJoseph8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
billcu1 said:
I did say that. And I believe I am right to an extent, or there would not be something. I don’t think you are following. Perhaps you need to look at the subject as “emptiness”. Rather than nothingness. It sounds like you have quite a bit to learn. What I said you have very much mis-judged. Find out what is “Inherent Existance”. I’ll leave that to you.
Click to expand...
Bro… Are you serious?
 
billcu1 said:
I did say that. And I believe I am right to an extent, or there would not be something. I don’t think you are following. Perhaps you need to look at the subject as “emptiness”. Rather than nothingness. It sounds like you have quite a bit to learn. What I said you have very much mis-judged. Find out what is “Inherent Existance”. I’ll leave that to you.
Click to expand...
Whether I am following, or not, is beside the point. The intentional use of ambiguity (multiple, contradictory definitions of nothing) does not foster reasonable philosophical discussions.
 
Nor is it Heidegger. Nor is it Plato. Nor is it Descartes. It’s billcu1.

Nothing is defined negatively - it lacks every quality, or perhaps we can say that there are no predicates for it. People get thrown off by the topic because here we are talking about nothing as if it was something, but they fail to grasp fully the significance of logical separations and distinctions - they do not require an actual separation or distinction in order to be useful. We might talk about the form and matter of a particular piece of wax, but we don’t have to (and can’t) take the two apart in reality.
 
davidv said:
Whether I am following, or not, is beside the point. The intentional use of ambiguity (multiple, contradictory definitions of nothing) does not foster reasonable philosophical discussions.
Click to expand...
A line of reasoning is only as good as it’s premises. The terminology of nothing or something do not really express the reality of the ideas. Nothing and something are very much ambiguous. I really think you’re looking in the wrong direction. IMO. Do you think that God is nothing? Do you think he is something? What about creation? I showed you where I believe you should look.
 
billcu1 said:
A line of reasoning is only as good as it’s premises. The terminology of nothing or something do not really express the reality of the ideas. Nothing and something are very much ambiguous. I really think you’re looking in the wrong direction. IMO. Do you think that God is nothing? Do you think he is something? What about creation?
Click to expand...
How is this for an axiom: nothing isn’t something.

God is “more than something,” and therefore is not “a thing,” or “a being,” but must be treated entirely differently because of His primacy over all that isn’t Him…

Human language doesn’t reveal realities, it points at realities. We can at least not point in different directions at the same time.
 
e_c said:
Nor is it Heidegger. Nor is it Plato. Nor is it Descartes. It’s billcu1.

Nothing is defined negatively - it lacks every quality, or perhaps we can say that there are no predicates for it. People get thrown off by the topic because here we are talking about nothing as if it was something, but they fail to grasp fully the significance of logical separations and distinctions - they do not require an actual separation or distinction in order to be useful. We might talk about the form and matter of a particular piece of wax, but we don’t have to (and can’t) take the two apart in reality.
Click to expand...
Oh I see ipse dixit. No it’s not me but it’s not any of those thinkers anyway.
 
e_c said:
How is this for an axiom: nothing isn’t something.

God is “more than something,” and therefore is not “a thing,” or “a being,” but must be treated entirely differently because of His primacy over all that isn’t Him…

Human language doesn’t reveal realities, it points at realities. We can at least not point in different directions at the same time.
Click to expand...
:clapping: Yes going in the right direction. Look up “Gematria”. Language doesn’t reveal realities? Many mystics would fall over laughing. God is not a “thing” or “thing”. He is not something he is not nothing. Very good.
 
billcu1 said:
Oh I see ipse dixit. No it’s not me but it’s not any of those thinkers anyway.
Click to expand...
So you are not attaching it even to yourself (bizarre), you won’t make a reference to whatever mysterious thinker this is you are channeling (aloof and esoteric), you challenge the most obvious principles about the topic (silly), you switch your definitions (inconsistent), you switch the terms (inconsistent again), you even misspell existence, and you call people unintelligent for not being able to follow you.

Friend, I’ve put my foot in it before (and will do it again, probably here on this board). Best thing to do is say, “Oops, sorry, I’m a fool,” then try to learn more and speak less.
 
e_c said:
So you are not attaching it even to yourself (bizarre), you won’t make a reference to whatever mysterious thinker this is you are channeling (aloof and esoteric), you challenge the most obvious principles about the topic (silly), you switch your definitions (inconsistent), you switch the terms (inconsistent again), you even misspell existence, and you call people unintelligent for not being able to follow you.

Friend, I’ve put my foot in it before (and will do it again, probably here on this board). Best thing to do is say, “Oops, sorry, I’m a fool,” then try to learn more and speak less.
Click to expand...
Well I believe I have told you where some of it is coming from. I do myself like Thomism and Aristotle, but I have some disagreements too. The whole “thingness” quality is not a valid premise, with God or anything. I believe it is something we want to see. I have not called anyone unintelligent at all. I am not going to hand you something (we are to seek) but I also already have handed enough to answer where this has came from. If there was a typo I am sorry. You say words don’t show reality. If there is a reality it IS words.

lmgtfy.com/?q=gematria

I have mentioned Gematria and many more things.
 
Let me demonstrate your own method to you.
billcu1 said:
Well I believe I have told you where some of it is coming from. I do myself like Thomism and Aristotle, but I have some disagreements too.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe it’s not so much “Thomism and Aristotle” as “Western philosophy.”
The whole “thingness” quality is not a valid premise, with God or anything. I believe it is something we want to see.
Click to expand...
Oh I see,* ipse dixit.*
I have not called anyone unintelligent at all. I am not going to hand you something (we are to seek) but I also already have handed enough to answer where this has came from. If there was a typo I am sorry.
Click to expand...
I am not going to hand you the response to this, you need to go look for it on your own. You deeply misunderstand what I am trying to say. It sounds like you have quite a bit to learn.
You say words don’t show reality. If there is a reality it IS words.
Click to expand...
lmgtfy.com/?q=gematria
Click to expand...
I have mentioned Gematria and many more things.
Click to expand...
:clapping: We’re getting there! You’re on your way to being as good at sarcasm as ME ME MEEEEEEE!
Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Later.
 
I have reason to believe the OP has abandoned this thread. Adieu…
 
Haven’t checked in a while, but great discussion and info!👍
e_c said:
We need to go to the actual texts if we’re to discuss them… There can be criticisms of the Physics and the Metaphysics, but by and large they are pure gold.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they sure make the most sense after some studying compared to other philosophies.
e_c said:
Perhaps the OP meant Aristotle’s “cosmology”?
Click to expand...
Well, his cosmology included.
 
StJoseph8 said:
I would like an explanation or further information on why we can say that while Aristotle’s physics was wrong, his metaphysics was correct. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Do you mean ‘we’ as in the Church? Not everything in Aristotle’s metaphysics is Church teaching. And not everything he wrote is correct. But that doesn’t mean he has nothing to teach us. Aristotle did not have the Christian revelation. Aquinas, while he used some of Aristotle, he had an advantage that Aristotle did not. He had the grace of the Holy Spirit. Aquinas was canonized. Aristotle was not.
 
billcu1 said:
A line of reasoning is only as good as it’s premises. The terminology of nothing or something do not really express the reality of the ideas. Nothing and something are very much ambiguous. I really think you’re looking in the wrong direction. IMO. Do you think that God is nothing?
Click to expand...
No. What makes you think I would?
Do you think he is something?
Click to expand...
Yes. He is an eternal, divine being.
What about creation?
Click to expand...
What about it?
I showed you where I believe you should look.
Click to expand...
I have no idea to what this refers.
 
davidv said:
No. What makes you think I would?

Yes. He is an eternal, divine being.

What about it?

I have no idea to what this refers.
Click to expand...
Neither God, nor his creation have a “quality of thingness”. If God doesn’t were would we get it? If God is something he is also nothing. And both those qualities share “thingness”. Existence ? Well that’s another matter. In order to exist, one must’ve been non-existent and both the existent and the non-existent are in suffering. A well know philosophic notion. Aristotlean? Not that I know of. I don’t know what he would’ve said about that. How can God be something but not nothing?
 
billcu1 said:
Neither God, nor his creation have a “quality of thingness”. If God doesn’t were would we get it?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “quality of thingness”? It seems to me that God is beyond the words used here. He told Moses, “I AM who AM”. This is much more that no thing.
If God is something he is also nothing.

Every way I read this, I see a logical contradiction.
Click to expand...
And both those qualities share “thingness”. Existence ?
Click to expand...

How does nothing have existence?
Well that’s another matter. In order to exist, one must’ve been non-existent and both the existent and the non-existent are in suffering.
Click to expand...
Huh?
A well know philosophic notion. Aristotlean? Not that I know of. I don’t know what he would’ve said about that. How can God be something but not nothing?
Click to expand...
What if He is someone rather that something?
 
davidv said:
What do you mean by “quality of thingness”? It seems to me that God is beyond the words used here. He told Moses, “I AM who AM”. This is much more that no thing.

How does nothing have existence?

Huh?

What if He is someone rather that something?
Click to expand...
Someone? Do you mean “Being” now that yes I agree with. God is beyond ideas like nothing and something. Right there. Does God exist? Yes is God or has God ever been “non-existent” Yes I agree there too. Like us. Now…is existence real yes of course, is non-existence real yes of course. You can certainly be non-existent and real.

Ontology, Linguistics, Some Socratic heritage and older Vedic philosophy. Ontology has all to do with “Being” That’s the big thing 🙂

It is very easy for us to “swallow a Camel and choke on a gnat”

What is the difference in “heaven” “hell” and “love”? Hint: nothing and I use the term nothing loosely.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top