Humans: Body and Soul

[Gorgias]

You are unable even to define “soul” much less offer a method how to discover it.

No; I’ve defined it, but you refuse to even consider it, but dismiss it out of hand as “gobbledy-gook”. Well… that’s reasonable!

Again, instead of empty criticism offer a constructive and helpful one.

I did. Here’s your helpful response: please re-ask the question; the way you’ve framed it up, it’s impossible to answer reasonably.

Besides, the only improper (or dumb) question is the one that is never asked.

Nah. There are plenty of ways to ask questions improperly. You’ve just managed to find one of them!

That is not a technical answer.

How so?

To bring up other non-existent entities is NOT a snark.

Again, you’re presenting yourself as being open to discussion, but it’s clear that you have no intent to do so. You merely dismiss everything being said as “non-existent entities”, “imaginary”, and “gobbledy-gook”. Nice talking to you, sealion!

By the way, the correct “tricky” question is: “WHEN have you stopped beating your wife?”. Just being helpful here…

Ahh… so you agree that you can ask a question that cannot be answered reasonably! Oh, you make it so easy…

(p.s., “have you stopped beating your wife?” is a reasonable way to ask the question, too. Your answer “no” means that you’re still beating her. Thanks for playing. Please come again… )

 

[Abrosz]

But, to look past the snark and address the contention, let me say this: an ‘imaginary’ being is one posited to have material form, but which doesn’t really exist (e.g., unicorns, leprechauns); a spiritual being is one posited not only to have no material form, but also to really exist.

And what differentiates them from the imaginary beings? There are concepts, which have no ontological existence. But you deny that the spiritual existence is merely a concept, and assert that these beings exist ontologically. So what does “existence” mean in this context? And please try to avoid some tautology!

Oh. Ok then: by your own admission, you’re saying you’re close-minded to the question.

Insults are dime a dozen. Actual answers are still lacking.

What you call close-minded is simply patiently waiting some evidence for a non-physical and yet physically active “spiritual” existence. Since you assert that you are aware of such existence, I wonder if you are willing (able??) to share the epistemological method you employ.

The final question is repeated here:

To sum up the questions: “ How do you know if the alleged, active, non-physical ‘reality’ is not simply a product of your imagination? ” This is the final question, for which an answer is requested - respectfully, of course!

Because “epistemology” is the KING!

 

[Gorgias]

So what does “existence” mean in this context? And please try to avoid some tautology!

Are you familiar with Thomistic thought? We’ll have to dig out some subtle concepts to be able to answer that question. If not, then I’d recommend that you bone up on his discussions of the question, and we can discuss them here! Otherwise… this isn’t exactly the best forum for an entry-level primer in Thomistic thought!

Insults are dime a dozen.

That wasn’t meant as an insult. It was an observation, based on your own words.

What you call close-minded is simply patiently waiting some evidence for a non-physical and yet physically active “spiritual” existence.

Right. That’s what “gobbledy-gook” and “imaginary” convey – “patient waiting”. Got it.

Because “epistemology” is the KING!

Actually, Jesus is our King.

But, as a non-believer, that you place something that is “merely a concept” and “without ontological existence” as your king, isn’t too surprising. (Again, not an insult – just an observation based on your own words. )

 

[Abrosz]

Are you familiar with Thomistic thought?

Yes, I wasted time on it. Translate it into simple, plain English if you wish to apply it. So far they are a perfect example of the “The Emperor has no clothes!!!”

Right. That’s what “gobbledy-gook” and “imaginary” convey – “patient waiting”. Got it.

More than your answers deserve.

Actually, Jesus is our King.

Congratulations. You have just been awarded for the most meaningless and evasive reply of the century.

Learn this:
Ontology without epistemology is useless.

For the last time: "What does existence mean for spiritual entities?"
And "What epistemological method can you offer to discover them?"

Cannot be more accommodating than that.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I wasted time on it.

This conversation just continues to spiral downward. OK, then: if you already know the answer, but you consider it to be a “waste of time”, then why the questions? Are you asking merely so that you might gain an opportunity to heckle the answers?

Cannot be more accommodating than that.

Right. 'cause denigrating your interlocutors is the most accommodating approach out there.

At this point, it seems you have neither an interest to discuss nor a desire hear answers. Your snark-meter is way up, though. Congrats!

Happy Easter! Be well…

 

[Abrosz]

This conversation just continues to spiral downward. OK, then: if you already know the answer, but you consider it to be a “waste of time”, then why the questions? Are you asking merely so that you might gain an opportunity to heckle the answers?

I am interested in YOUR approach to the questions I presented. As far as I em concerned the phrase “spiritual being” is a meaningless expression. BUT! I am aware that I am not omniscient, and MAYBE, just MAYBE the expression does have an actual meaning. So that is why I presented those questions. Not to denigrate the answers.

Do you understand that “ontology without epistemology is sheer speculation?” You can assent to it, or you can disagree. Which one will it be?

And from this principle it follows that since you assert the existence of “spiritual beings”, it is a LEGITIMATE question: “how do I recognize them”?

Oh, and best wishes to you, too…

 

[Gorgias]

I am interested in YOUR approach to the questions I presented

I concur with Aquinas. I guess that means I’m a waste of your time, too…

Do you understand that “ ontology without epistemology is sheer speculation? ” You can assent to it, or you can disagree. Which one will it be?

I do understand it. But, I also understand that what you really seem to mean is “ontology without an epistemology with which I agree is something I consider in my own view to be sheer speculation.” And therefore, since the measuring-stick extends only to your own personal opinion, I realize that it’s not really “epistemology”, but simply hubris.

And from this principle it follows that since you assert the existence of “spiritual beings”, it is a LEGITIMATE question: “how do I recognize them”?

“Not by any physical means” is my answer. Which, if I’m sniffing out your worldview correctly, implies to you “not at all.”

 

[Abrosz]

I do understand it. But, I also understand that what you really seem to mean is “ontology without an epistemology with which I agree is something I consider in my own view to be sheer speculation.”

What I really mean is what I really say. I see. Well, epistemology is NOT subjective. The method given (if given) is an objective description of the steps one must take to get to the conclusion. There is no precondition for the epistemology, except “does it work?”

And therefore, since the measuring-stick extends only to your own personal opinion, I realize that it’s not really “epistemology”, but simply hubris .

Which part of objective method don’t you understand?

“Not by any physical means” is my answer. Which, if I’m sniffing out your worldview correctly, implies to you “not at all.”

Well, I am not really interested in learning how many different ways you CANNOT get from “A” to “B”, just like how many different ways can you “mess up” a dish to be served for dinner. I was interested in some POSITIVE result, in vain, its seems. Mea culpa, I guess.

It was a short episode to derail from a mutually fruitful discussion, so I am about to terminate it. Best of luck in your evasions an non-answers.

 

[Gorgias]

The method given (if given) is an objective description of the steps one must take to get to the conclusion. There is no precondition for the epistemology, except “ does it work? ”

OK, then: “God is Truth.” That works.

Which part of objective method don’t you understand?

What part of “I don’t accept your epistemology, Gorgias” don’t you understand? Since that’s clearly the answer I’m anticipating…

Well, I am not really interested in learning how many different ways you CANNOT get from “A” to “B”, just like how many different ways can you “mess up” a dish to be served for dinner. I was interested in some POSITIVE result, in vain, its seems. Mea culpa, I guess.

I’m surprised, given your readings in philosophy / theology, that you’ve never heard of the apophatic approach to knowledge. That is, describing things that are difficult to assess in terms of what they’re not.

Best of luck in your evasions an non-answers.

And best of luck in your closed-minded approach to understanding!

 

[Abrosz]

OK, then: “God is Truth.” That works.

Out of topic baloney.

What part of “I don’t accept your epistemology, Gorgias” don’t you understand? Since that’s clearly the answer I’m anticipating…

I am waiting for a clear-cut epistemological method. I don’t care what it is, as long as I can follow it, and learn about these alleged “spiritual beings”. If your epistemological method is "say three times the Lord’s prayer separated by two backward somersaults, that would be cool.

I’m surprised, given your readings in philosophy / theology, that you’ve never heard of the apophatic approach to knowledge. That is, describing things that are difficult to assess in terms of what they’re not .

Only applicable in a system with FINITE number of options.

Time to terminate this useless non-conversation. You can have the last word.

Bye!

 

[Gorgias]

Out of topic baloney.

See? “Closed-minded opinion”. Thanks!

I am waiting for a clear-cut epistemological method. I don’t care what it is, as long as I can follow it

Fine. Then, the obligation is yours to define what “clear-cut” and “I can follow it” requires.

Time to terminate this useless non-conversation.

Have it your way. Blessings…!

 

[Gorgias]

The question is, in their awareness, how do they differentiate themselves from other spirits?

Aquinas would remind us that each angel is his own species. (I don’t recall, offhand, if he uses the word “species”, but that’s the gist. You and I are both “human” in exactly the same way, but with distinct physical attributes; angels are distinct from each other in specie.). I would respond, then, that they know each other as distinct in the same way that you know you’re not a cat or a dog.

(The question, perhaps, that you’re looking to ask isn’t about awareness so much as perception? That is, how do non-material beings perceive other spirits?)

How can spirits be aware of their own finiteness if they have no boundaries whereby they may differentiate themselves from another being?

No… they have no physical boundaries. That doesn’t imply that a spirit thinks himself to be Hegel’s Weltgeist, just because he doesn’t have physical boundaries.

In being entities presumably retaining free will and rationality how do spirits “recognize” other spirits different from themselves given that 1) those spirits are not omnipresent which entails some semblance of localization and 2) spirits are not omniscient which entails some process of gathering information they hadn’t had before again entailing a framework of localization.

I have problems with a couple of things you say, here. (Imagine! )

First, your continued use of “localization” is problematic, as it assigns a physical attribute to a non-physical being; but, we’ve been over that sticking point enough.

Second – and here, I’m thinking of angels, since they’re the ‘spirits’ I envision that we’re discussing – they don’t “gather information.” The Church teaches that they have infused knowledge. That is, they don’t ratiocinate, but instead, they have the gift of knowledge given to them by God. That kind of short-circuits your whole argument, it seems to me. If God gives them knowledge, then we’d assert that this includes knowledge of self (as such) and others (as such).

 

[Gorgias]

(continuing…)

For instance, as a spirit, how do I “move” my awareness to new information as an agent of free will

You don’t.

More to the point: spirits – and again, I’m thinking angels – utilized their free will to decide whether to be ‘for’ or ‘against’ God. Having done so, their decision is locked eternally (again, since they have infused knowledge and do not ratiocinate, they cannot “change their minds”). So… your awareness doesn’t pick up new information, so to speak. You have what you have, and you don’t have what you don’t have.

There is no “reality” external to God. We are made, as physical beings, to process these things in a framework that God has made “real” for the purpose. This processing takes place all within our own internal awareness.

I’m gonna disagree with you here, as well. You’re arguing a sort of modified Buddhism; the physical universe doesn’t really exist. Except that it does, by grant of God. Nope: it really exists, which implies that you (as an embodied person) really exist. Your existence isn’t actualized by virtue of the “processing” I do to make sense of my sensory experience. You’re real whether or not I see you.

The fact that God sustains the both of us doesn’t mean we aren’t real. It just means that our existence is contingent upon God.

Your beating this horse to death…yes, we all get that nothing happens outside of Gods will.

I wouldn’t be beating it to death unless you kept asserting things contrary to it.

Obviously things happen which traditionally are taken to be against God’s will though.

I might quibble with your wording. Against His commands? Definitely. Against our nature? Certainly. Against His will, though? In a certain sense, nothing against His will occurs. So, ‘torture’ is something that He doesn’t explicitly will, but that doesn’t mean that it’s “against His will.” I’d say that it means that He allows it, even though He doesn’t participate in it or condone it.

That being said, I’ll keep beating the horse.

God actively wills spirits to become apparitions that are accessible to human sensory perception. Without that active and explicit willing of the event, spirits don’t “go” or “move” or “act” within the physical universe.

(one more continuation…)

 

[Gorgias]

(last one!)

As for spirits what’s the difference between their doing something against God’s “will” and a physical entity doing the same?

Angels do not do anything against God’s will or anything He doesn’t condone. (They’re in the Beatific Vision; that would be impossible for them. That might be a discussion for another day, though.). We humans take actions that conform to God’s will – that is, they are examples of us using our free will – even if we are misusing free will by doing things that are sinful. Angels don’t sin.

What about the fallen angels, then? They were given their free will choice. They exercised it in a way that was sinful. God allowed it.

Didn’t they come down to have relations with the daughters of men?

Nope. I’m afraid you’ve been watching too many History Channel “documentaries” that assert their own fantasy interpretations of Scripture. The “fallen angels” theory was popular in antiquity, but is discounted for precisely the reasons we’ve outlined here – they don’t have physical bodies. The “ancient kings” theory might apply, in which case it merely means “kings built up personal harems”. But, the Catholic interpretation is that the text is contrasting the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain. (See Bergsma and Pitre’s “A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament” for more details.)

Are these examples not the equivalent of saying I’m bored…so I’m gonna go do such and such?

No. They’re not.

That being said, what would prevent a spirit from arbitrarily constructing a unit of measuring duration with which it may keep track of the “times” between one unique awareness and another?

Because he doesn’t have discrete “unique awarenesses”.

This awareness changes.

They are simple, not composite. They do not ratiocinate. Therefore, they do not change. Having made their free will choice WRT God, they are immutable.