Biologists Attack Plato and Aristotle

[Leela]

*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.

So a burrito could be too hot for God to eat, and a math problem could be too hard for God to solve.

 

[Leela]

Just out of interest, how do you know that?

Because, by “the world” I mean all that exists, and if ideas exist, they are part of the world.

 

[Image_of_God]

So a burrito could be too hot for God to eat, and a math problem could be too hard for God to solve.

Since God can do all things, I would argue that he *can * do that. Whether he does so or not is the more important question. And I think the answer to that is no. When you use the word “could” you are speaking of a possibility and not an actuality. Is it possible? Yes. Is it actual? No.

 

[Leela]

Since God can do all things, I would argue that he *can * do that.

If God could creae a math problem so hard that even he could not solve it, then there would be something God could not do–solve the math problem.

 

[JDaniel]

Because, by “the world” I mean all that exists, and if ideas exist, they are part of the world.

Leela:

I have just recently come to the belief that all is just illusion. There is no reality. If there was, it would be so absurd that . . . nope. It truly is an illusion. Seriously.

jd

 

[agangbern]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Biology_and_medicine

Are you referring to this in the link you gave above?

“Aristotle believed that intellectual purposes, i.e., formal causes, guided all natural processes. Such a teleological view gave Aristotle cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design. Noting that “no animal has, at the same time, both tusks and horns,” and “a single-hooved animal with two horns I have never seen,” Aristotle suggested that Nature, giving no animal both horns and tusks, was staving off vanity, and giving creatures faculties only to such a degree as they are necessary. Noting that ruminants had a multiple stomachs and weak teeth, he supposed the first was to compensate for the latter, with Nature trying to preserve a type of balance.[27]”

What is biologist’s attack to it?

 

[Leela]

Leela:

I have just recently come to the belief that all is just illusion. There is no reality. If there was, it would be so absurd that . . . nope. It truly is an illusion. Seriously.

jd

That’s a very unusual position. How did you arrive at it?

 

[JDaniel]

That’s a very unusual position. How did you arrive at it?

Leela:

Think about it. Everything that we know, or think we know, really only exists only in our minds. Much of what we know, or think we know, is fraught with uncertainty. We can’t trust anything. We can’t even trust our minds.

So called “reality” is so absurd that neither nature or a god/gods could have created it.

I don’t see this as a “matrix” sort of thing. It’s more like, “I’m here, but, no one and nothing else is.”

As a self-proclaimed “pragmatist”, how do you reconcile your mind with perceived outside reality?

jd

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, they maybe wrong in some aspects. But it would be more wrong if it is a “biologist” true to his calling would attempt to prove that Plato and Aristotle were wrong.

If Aristotle’s embryology is scientifically unsound, a biologist who says as much is doing what his profession as a biologist requires of him. As an OP has already pointed out, we’ve moved since his time - that is why his astronomy is not that of NASA, and must never be. Or are we to take the defective biology & astronomy of Aristotle as the last word in those sciences ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Evolution is without direction or purpose, it is just adaptation over time to changing conditions. How do I know what an ape dreams? And how do you? Apes adapted to their environment, and humans to ours. Apes do not evolve into humans-they share a common ancestor, that is all. Did your parents evolve into you, or do they stay as they are?

I am not an ethologist, nor a psychologist, so I can’t answer you question about self-awareness with any great authority. Brain function is not an “all or nothing” thing however-higher animals do show some self-awareness.
edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html

When practicing science, a biologist is doing science, and not theology, and therefore is not considering spiritual things even if he or she is a Christian. Scientists study nature when practicing their craft, not spirituality.

I do not know which individual scientists are spiritual, and which are not. There is Kenneth B. Miller, who is both a Catholic and a biologist, but I have no idea what he is thinking about at any particular time. I imagine when he is in church, he worships god, and in the lab, he does his science. So does everyone, I guess. A bus driver drives buses when at work, and prays in his church or at home-I really don’t understand the thrust/point of your comments-would you elaborate?

Edited: for typos.

Teleology is for the philosophers - it is not a scientific issue, unless one confuses it with adaptation, But adaptation as a fact or process does not tell us anything about what the universe is for. The universe is a plenum of entities, many of them biological, none of them wearing their meaning on their foreheads; they just are. It is this complete absence of explicit meaning in them as material entities that makes them safe for philosophy & religion, as well as for biology & evolution. Otherwise, biology & evolution would have no room in the world - they would have been imperiously crowded out by philosophy & religion. If theology & what concerns it wishes to regard biological entities as “sacramental”, as pointing to its god or gods, it can; but not & never at the expence of biology & what concerns it.​

 

[Image_of_God]

If God could creae a math problem so hard that even he could not solve it, then there would be something God could not do–solve the math problem.

This is where the philosophy of the Christian religion gets very complicated and I’d rather not go into it. Again you are dealing with the realm of possibilities and not that of actualities. So even though theoretically, God could create a problem he couldn’t solve, he doesn’t. I cannot say that God can’t create a problem he couldn’t solve. But I can’t say that he would create a problem he couldn’t solve. I don’t want to make your head spin.

 

[Image_of_God]

Leela:

I have just recently come to the belief that all is just illusion. There is no reality. If there was, it would be so absurd that . . . nope. It truly is an illusion. Seriously.

jd

A position like that is impractical and I’ll tell you why.

You said clearly that “all is just illusion. There is no reality.”
If all is just illusion as you say, how do you know for sure whether the thought that all is just illusion isn’t really just an illusion? And how do you know that the thought that all is just illusion is an illusion isn’t just an illusion? And how do you know that the thought that all is just illusion is illusion is illusion isn’t just illusion? And so on…

You’re statement here is very Cartisian. And like it, it falls under the same flaw. You say “there is no reality.” Yet you contradict yourself by stating that “all is just illusion” is a reality.
In order for the fact that “there is no reality” to be true, it would have to be a reality.

 

[Image_of_God]

If Aristotle’s embryology is scientifically unsound, a biologist who says as much is doing what his profession as a biologist requires of him. As an OP has already pointed out, we’ve moved since his time - that is why his astronomy is not that of NASA, and must never be. Or are we to take the defective biology & astronomy of Aristotle as the last word in those sciences ?​

The problem here is that the biologist, at least this is what I get from the quote from the OP, focus mostly on attacking Platonic philosophy. Platonic philosophy has a lot to do with the supernatural and the biologist seems to blur the lines between the natural and the supernatural. Plato’s ideal forms are in the supernatural realm of ideas. Plato argues that in this supernatural realm, things are constant and do not change as they do in “the flux.” The biologist says that since things change here, most particularly humans, there can be no such thing as an ideal things, and most particularly ideal humans. That’s like saying that because of evolution on Earth, there can be no eternal humans in a place such as Heaven. There is a blur of things natural and supernatural to such a degree that the biologist states that because everything changes here, everything must change there too, if he believes that there is a there.

 

[Leela]

Leela:

Think about it. Everything that we know, or think we know, really only exists only in our minds. Much of what we know, or think we know, is fraught with uncertainty. We can’t trust anything. We can’t even trust our minds.

So called “reality” is so absurd that neither nature or a god/gods could have created it.

I don’t see this as a “matrix” sort of thing. It’s more like, “I’m here, but, no one and nothing else is.”

If you are looking for a name for your new philosphy, you are describing solipsism.

As a self-proclaimed “pragmatist”, how do you reconcile your mind with perceived outside reality?

Pragmatism is the perspective that we can make our ideas more clear if we always talk about beliefs in terms of their consequences in lived experiences. Solipsism is a good example of a philosophical bugbear that gets cleared up with pragmatism. What possible difference in you lived experiences could it possibly make to posit proceed as though you exist and nothing else? Your answer will determine whether teh above is just idle talk or if there is a difference that actually makes a difference between your position and realism.

Best,
Leela

 

[agangbern]

A position like that is impractical and I’ll tell you why.

You said clearly that “all is just illusion. There is no reality.”
If all is just illusion as you say, how do you know for sure whether the thought that all is just illusion isn’t really just an illusion? And how do you know that the thought that all is just illusion is an illusion isn’t just an illusion? And how do you know that the thought that all is just illusion is illusion is illusion isn’t just illusion? And so on…

You’re statement here is very Cartisian. And like it, it falls under the same flaw. You say “there is no reality.” Yet you contradict yourself by stating that “all is just illusion” is a reality.
In order for the fact that “there is no reality” to be true, it would have to be a reality.

Yes, that really makes sense.

 

[agangbern]

If Aristotle’s embryology is scientifically unsound, a biologist who says as much is doing what his profession as a biologist requires of him. As an OP has already pointed out, we’ve moved since his time - that is why his astronomy is not that of NASA, and must never be. Or are we to take the defective biology & astronomy of Aristotle as the last word in those sciences ?​

“Aristotle believed that intellectual purposes, i.e., formal causes, guided all natural processes. Such a teleological view gave Aristotle cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design. Noting that “no animal has, at the same time, both tusks and horns,” and “a single-hooved animal with two horns I have never seen,” Aristotle suggested that Nature, giving no animal both horns and tusks, was staving off vanity, and giving creatures faculties only to such a degree as they are necessary. Noting that ruminants had a multiple stomachs and weak teeth, he supposed the first was to compensate for the latter, with Nature trying to preserve a type of balance.[27]
In a similar fashion, Aristotle believed that creatures were arranged in a graded scale of perfection rising from plants on up to man, the scala naturae or Great Chain of Being.[28] His system had eleven grades, arranged according “to the degree to which they are infected with potentiality”, expressed in their form at birth. The highest animals laid warm and wet creatures alive, the lowest bore theirs cold, dry, and in thick eggs.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle