Biologists Attack Plato and Aristotle

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Why THIS ,mention? because the writer obviouly does not understand Plato and Aristotle, and blithely reveals his ignorance of what they have to say. One wonders if he knows any philosophy except what he has picked up on the fly.

Enlighten us, then.

 

[JDaniel]

I certainly will back up my claims, but I thought that the things Aristotle got wrong were common knowledge, and therefore do not need supporting evidence. Nor did I make so-called “universal statements” regarding Plato or Aristotle, I merely said they got some things wrong.

OK. Well, it did have the sound of invalidation through the assertion of errors, plural. So, you have pointed out one error. In fact, at that time and for that time, it wasn’t an error. That the earth was the center of the universe was awfully well received by the majority, if not all, of the existing population. I possess, for example, a plethora of slightly older medical books. Through the course of years and further investigation, I am sure that several conclusions within them are incorrect. At least in one instance that I know of, the incorrect conclusion was proven incorrect by the original advocate of the conclusion.

Both men were excellent thinkers, and contributed much. I certainly admire both as philosophers and scientists. Aristotle’s cosmology was quite wrong however. The Earth is not the center of the universe.

I draw your attention to Aristotle’s view of cosmology in the physics section:-

newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm

Aristotle also made other assumptions that are weak or even absent in evidence, like his assumption of first cause.

Well, now the gloves are on! Try proving that to me!

As for these assumptions, they are simply that, assumptions.

Although much, much better thought out than yours above.

I object, in particular to the last two. You can have design without a designer, and that “designer” is natural selection. Darwin demonstrated that quite complex adaptation can arise from natural causation.

You might just want to spend a little time in several of the fora dealing with the subject of Darwin, as we speak. I do not want to veer off the matter of this thread. That wouldn’t be polite, and, is discouraged by the moderator.

If you would like to start a thread that debates the validity of the four causes, please do. You can do that in the Philosophy forum. I’m game!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Jesus Christ was either human, or divine, you can’t have it both ways.

But of course I can! Your proposition is absurd. The concept of Christ being both divine and man goes back at least two thousand years. Others, in this forum, may be able to document even further than that.

jd

 

[trinitybeliever]

Yes, you can make a statement like that, but by just asserting it, does not make it true. It is a logical fallacy, in fact. Either Jesus was man, or not man. If Jesus is a deity, then he is a deity, and therefore not a man.

By definition gods are spiritual, immortal and immaterial, and men are material, and mortal.

Not by Christian definition.

DB, if I recall you said you are an athiest. I just wonder what an athiest knows about divinity?

 

[agangbern]

You are right. God has both a true human nature and a true divine nature. However, he is only a divine person.

Just curious. Why must the word “only” be placed before divine, in “he is only a divine person”.? What are you trying to say, please?

 

[Image_of_God]

Just curious. Why must the word “only” be placed before divine, in “he is only a divine person”.? What are you trying to say, please?

The word “only” is placed there to emphasize that Jesus was not two kinds of persons. He was a divine person. He was not a human person at all, in the sense of the way the word person was used at the Council of Chalcedon. He did have a divine and human nature. But he was not a human person, though. He was singularly speaking, a divine person.

 

[Image_of_God]

But of course I can! Your proposition is absurd. The concept of Christ being both divine and man goes back at least two thousand years. Others, in this forum, may be able to document even further than that.

jd

Darwinsbulldog says that Jesus can’t be divine and human. If we say that Jesus is divine, who is to say that he can’t do such and such (like becoming human) because he is divine. To even say that a divine person can’t do such and such because it is illogical is to bind the divine to human standards. Such a position is erroneous. For, if a divine person is limited by human standards then that person is no longer divine, but human. A characteristic of divinity is that it has no boundaries or limitations.

Therefore it can be said that it was entirely possible for Jesus to assume a human nature. He was a divine person and as a result, everything is possible for Him.

 

[agangbern]

The word “only” is placed there to emphasize that Jesus was not two kinds of persons. He was a divine person. He was not a human person at all, in the sense of the way the word person was used at the Council of Chalcedon. He did have a divine and human nature. But he was not a human person, though. He was singularly speaking, a divine person.

True man but not a human person. OK. I must simply accept that, no need to figure it out. Thank you.

 

[Leela]

Darwinsbulldog and Leela,

The problem was not that a biologist was talking about the relation between biology and philosophy. The problem was that the biologist wrote things that displayed a complete misunderstanding of Plato and Aristotle. The biologist does not have to respect anyone’s beliefs, but he does have to refrain from pontificating on things that he does not understand. This is not spirituality or theology, but philosophy.

Biologists can and should correct Aristotle’s errors in his biological treatises, but when they go into metaphysics and linguistics?

His claim was that “Darwin’s most dangerous idea was his recognition of the reality of the variations that exist between individuals in populations” is absurd. Plato and Aristotle were fully aware that there were variations within a class, species, type, or kind.

The common nouns dog, town, and triangle refer to classes, and the individuals and we apply these common nouns to and place in classes are particulars that are different. Plato and Aristotle never claimed that variations “don’t matter.” In fact, it us because there are variations within a class that we can say that we apply common nouns to the individuals indifferently. To say that we can apply words to a number of individuals indifferently is to say that there is a certain sameness in the individuals that one recognizes. By means of an abstract concept, we understand what is common to all of the particular dogs or triangles that we can perceive or imagine. This is what Aristotle had in mind. (I paraphrase from a modern Aristotelian philosopher named MJ Adler)

It is the philosophy of nominalism that the biologist is defending, but evolution does not lead to nominalism, as the biologist states. The one thing that the biologist got right was his statement that nominalism can be traced back to the 14th Century philosopher William of Ockham. It is a linguistic and metaphysical dispute on which evolution has nothing to say.

I’m having trouble distinguishing whether the issue for you is, as it is for some in this thread, that a biologist has no business discussing anything but biology, or is the issue for you that if he wants to talk about philosophy, he ought to get it right. I think that academics can and should talk about what they see as the implications of their own field upon other fields. and note how other fields have influenced thinking in their own field. If different fields had nothing to do with anything other than themselves, they wouldn’t be worth studying.

 

[Leela]

That is the point of this thread.Biologists attacking Plato and Aristotle. People whose main concern are actual living organisms wanting to enter into the world of pure ideas. It is like a fish wanting to live in land.

There is only one world. And there is no “world of pure ideas.” If philosophy had nothing to do with the the world of living organisms such as human beings, it would be a useless discipline.

 

[agangbern]

There is only one world. And there is no “world of pure ideas.” If philosophy had nothing to do with the the world of living organisms such as human beings, it would be a useless discipline.

Actually, there are two worlds. The physical world on the one hand and the spiritual world on the other.

Biology deals with the physical aspects of living organisms. Philosophy goes beyond the physical into the spiritual. Therefore, if a biologist would like to participate in the discussion of spiritual things, then he would need to set aside first his being a biologist.

 

[JDaniel]

Darwinsbulldog says that Jesus can’t be divine and human. If we say that Jesus is divine, who is to say that he can’t do such and such (like becoming human) because he is divine. To even say that a divine person can’t do such and such because it is illogical is to bind the divine to human standards. Such a position is erroneous. For, if a divine person is limited by human standards then that person is no longer divine, but human. A characteristic of divinity is that it has no boundaries or limitations.

Therefore it can be said that it was entirely possible for Jesus to assume a human nature. He was a divine person and as a result, everything is possible for Him.

Correcto mundo, Senor!

jd

 

[rossum]

I would like to know how Darwin explains self awareness.

The jury is still out on that one. Two possible explanations that I have seen are that self awareness is beneficial and so spread by natural selection. The other is that self awareness is an epiphenomenon of our large brains which evolved for reasons other than self-awareness.

Does an ape know it is an ape?

In scientific terms humans are apes (Hominidae), so for certain values of ‘ape’ the answer is definitely yes. For the non-human apes the answer is probably yes. Mirror test experiments show a degree of self-awareness in all of the great apes, elephants and many cetecans. There are debatable results from some birds. Very young humans, below about 18 months, fail the test.

Does it dream of being not an ape, but a man?

No, it is a butterfly dreaming that it is an ape. (apologies to Chuang Tzu )

Does it will itself to evolve into man?

No. Evolution is not ‘willed’. Can you will your own DNA to change?

Why don’t apes continue to evolve into men?

Because the “upright large-brained plains-living biped” slot is already filled. Generally it is very difficult for a new species to invade an ecological slot that is already taken. That is why the dinosaurs kept the mammals small and nocturnal for millions of years. It was only after the non-avian dinosaurs died out that mammals were able to expand to fill the vacant slots.

rossum

 

[Leela]

Actually, there are two worlds. The physical world on the one hand and the spiritual world on the other.

If you say so…

Biology deals with the physical aspects of living organisms. Philosophy goes beyond the physical into the spiritual. Therefore, if a biologist would like to participate in the discussion of spiritual things, then he would need to set aside first his being a biologist.

If you think that a biologist needs to stop being a biologist before he can draw connections between biology and philosophy, then I wonder what you know about Plato and Aristotle.

If you suggested to Aristotle, for example, that there was something called science that should be kept separate from something called philosophy and explained what you meant by those terms, and said that scientists and philosophers have nothing to say to one another, he would say that that is ridiculous. In fact, Aristotle thought that what he was doing was science, but would have called it “natural philosophy” which he took to be a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and includes fields that would be regarded today as physics, biology and other natural sciences.

Today, the scope of philosophy has become limited to more abstract inquiries, such as ethics and metaphysics, but Aristotle’s philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry, so it is more than ironic that such criticisms of a biologist against this particular philosopher would be thought of as out of bounds.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Darwinsbulldog says that Jesus can’t be divine and human. If we say that Jesus is divine, who is to say that he can’t do such and such (like becoming human) because he is divine. To even say that a divine person can’t do such and such because it is illogical is to bind the divine to human standards. Such a position is erroneous. For, if a divine person is limited by human standards then that person is no longer divine, but human. A characteristic of divinity is that it has no boundaries or limitations.

So can someone who is divine microwave a burrito so hot that even he can’t eat it? Can God make a math problem so hard that even he can’t solve it? Can he make 2+3 equal 7? Simultaneously being human and divine seems to me to be the same sort of contradiction.

 

[agangbern]

If you suggested to Aristotle, for example, that there was something called science that should be kept separate from something called philosophy and explained what you meant by those terms, and said that scientists and philosophers have nothing to say to one another, he would say that that is ridiculous.

Yes, possibly he would say so. Because it is true that philosophy is also a science, though the empiricists may say no.

In fact, Aristotle thought that what he was doing was science, but would have called it “natural philosophy” which he took to be a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and includes fields that would be regarded today as physics, biology and other natural sciences.

What were his biological studies, if indeed he made biological studies, that biologists attacked?

 

[Leela]

Yes, possibly he would say so. Because it is true that philosophy is also a science, though the empiricists may say no.

or that science is also philosophy.

What were his biological studies, if indeed he made biological studies, that biologists attacked?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Biology_and_medicine

 

[quaestio]

And there is no “world of pure ideas.”

Just out of interest, how do you know that?

 

[Image_of_God]

So can someone who is divine microwave a burrito so hot that even he can’t eat it? Can God make a math problem so hard that even he can’t solve it? Can he make 2+3 equal 7? Simultaneously being human and divine seems to me to be the same sort of contradiction.

*Can *He do such and such? Yes. But the more proper question would be does he? The answer to that would be no. Can God make 2 + 3 = 7? Yes. Does he. As far as I know, no.

That a divine person can assume both a human and divine nature only appears illogical because you trap a divine person into the box of human logic. We mortals live only a short time and only know so little about what is possible.

 

[Image_of_God]

True man but not a human person. OK. I must simply accept that, no need to figure it out. Thank you.

Correcto mundo, Senor!

jd

Thank you both.