Is the essence of a person the sum total of his atoms?

[Frankenfurter]

Nice, but hardly relevant. EVERYTHING limits our freedom. The gravity limits my freedom to fly like a bird. The lack of money takes away my freedom to have a different colored Lamborghini for every day of the week. The existence of my wife takes away my freedom to have mistresses.

None of these are “sacrifices”. Limitation of our freedom has nothing to do with “love”.

And most importantly, love cannot be limited to a relationship between a man and a woman.

Logically speaking, just because something takes away freedom, does not make it a sacrifice. And not all sacrifices have to do with love either. That was not claimed by you or John Paul. No need to point it out really.

And nobody claimed that Love was limited to a man or women either.

Instead you an JP seem to agree that sacrifice is a necessary condition for Love. That’s all. Thank you for that. I agree.

 

[Solmyr]

Instead you an JP seem to agree that sacrifice is a necessary condition for Love. That’s all. Thank you for that. I agree.

I am sorry, but I never asserted that “sacrifice is necessary for love”. This must be a misunderstanding.

 

[Frankenfurter]

But any behavior which will not interfere and prevent “evil” cannot be called “love” in my vocabulary.

Things that come to mind in acting to interfere with or prevent evil seem like they put one in some kind of jeopardy - a sacrifice of oneself for the good of another.

 

[Solmyr]

Things that come to mind in acting to interfere with or prevent evil seem like they put one in some kind of jeopardy - a sacrifice of oneself for the good of another.

Only if one must put oneself into jeopardy. If one is able to “will” the evil away without any “danger” to oneself, then the sacrifice would be unnecessary.

 

[tonyrey]

He has to suffer first before he is exonerated - like the refugee trafficker who was confronted with the bodies of the children he caused to drown… Or the mental agony of Judas who hanged himself when he realised he had betrayed innocent blood and couldn’t bear to go on living with that dreadful sense of guilt and remorse.
Well, we don’t really know this, do we Tony. This is all supposition.

You need to give a better explanation, Brad. Otherwise your belief that my explanation is supposition amounts to supposition.

Nevertheless, I have been told more times than I care to remember that a miserable life in this world is more than compnated for by eternal bliss.

Why not?

So the child murderer still gets eternal bliss. Whereas perhaps the mother who does some evil, perhaps as a result of her anguish, and doesn’t repent, gets hell.

If evil is the result of anguish it is not moral evil.

Again, I don’t see anything in these concepts that even comes close to my idea of justice. Well, we don’t really know this, do we Tony. This is all supposition.

What is your idea of justice, Brad?

Nevertheless, I have been told more times than I care to remember that a miserable life in this world is more than compnated for by eternal bliss.

Why not?

 

[inocente]

I agree with all of that. Jesus and the ancient Greeks happened separately and did not know each other. Still, I believe that truth is universal and there are truths common to us all including the Greeks and Jesus. I also note that it was the Greeks that embraced Christianity (I assume because it jibed so well with Plato, etc.) and gave us the first translation of the Bible that is still used today as the, well, bible. I note also that Greeks got many things right, like math, etc. and that many of these truths are universal. I also note that today, even modern Greece is still one of the most Christian nations of the world.

So I don’t accept your two choices (God sent Aristotle or Jesus incorporated Aristotle) . There is a third choice, namely that Jesus and the Greeks happened independently, but have common ground of truth.

So you’re saying Paul was wrong, and Jesus never had to be born or crucified, because the Greeks came to the truths independently. :ehh:

 

[inocente]

By their own definition though the physicalists say:

An important concept within Physicalism is that of supervenience, which is the idea that higher levels of existence are dependent on lower levels, such that there can only be a change in the higher level if there is also a change in the lower level (the higher level is said to supervene on the lower level).

I interpret that to mean therefore that a person (a higher form) cannot change unless there is also is a change to his atoms (lower form)?

So if we talk about the dynamics of a person’s essence then, the Physicalist says that all changes to the person’s essence MUST also be a change in his atoms. There would be no way to change a person’s essence without also having a change to his atoms in some way.

To me this is like saying then that all changes to our understanding of the story of Christianity MUST include changes to the letters. That seems utterly absurb to me because the story of Christianity is NOT contained within the letters, it is much larger than that. But you say it is absurd to you too?

Have you studied physicalism or are you just going from a couple of definitions?

Reason I ask is you’ve mentioned supervenience before, but all it says is that there are a series of levels at which we can describe something. So you think “left arm move up”, which is very simple to describe at that level, but at lower levels it’s much more complicated, even in this short overview:

part I, three minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=7wM5_aUn2qs
part II, two minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=HJj3jUVDFFo

 

[Bradski]

You need to give a better explanation, Brad. Otherwise your belief that my explanation is supposition amounts to supposition.

I’m not sure it works like that. If I suggest that you are making suppositions, then you have to show that you are not. Purgatory is supposition.

What is your idea of justice, Brad?

Punishment that fits the crime.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I want to go back to my question and give a summary of my conclusions based on all of your feedback. I sincerely appreciate everyone who took time out of your lives to help me with this question.

And folks have brought up an important point which is what exactly is this essence thing? Thank you to those that brought up that point. I have stated my definition many times, but I will state it again.

Since it is my question, I will make the definition that I would like to use for answering and I believe it to be consistent with the accepted ones, but I also propose a test.

If you could collect everything you needed to produce an exact copy of yourself and this copy would be indistinguishable by you or anyone allowing for any test that one might propose, then what you have is your essence.

The Star Trek analogy is dead on. Thanks for that. The transporter seems to be able to capture this ‘essence’.

I confess that I do not know what this essence must contain or what limits we can place on it. It appears the Physicalist does. So the burden of proof is on them for the purpose of this discussion.

Yes I have read much of what I can find and I have to say I am not compelled to believe they have found some sort of bound on what this essence of a thing by saying that it is physical, or something that must supervene on the physical. In fact, they plainly say that we do not even know when we have found the limits of what is physical. So no bound, and an open-ended definition of physical. In fact, the definition itself is circular: Physicalism is the belief that everything is physical?

In fact the more I read, the more I see the simple circular biases are reinforced in the entire line of thought. It is the subjective study of the mind trying to understand itself with no reference to an objective world.

This bias is summed up by the Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia which states that:

The first thing to say when considering the truth of physicalism is that we live in an overwhelmingly physicalist or materialist intellectual culture. The result is that, as things currently stand, the standards of argumentation required to persuade someone of the truth of physicalism are much lower than the standards required to persuade someone of its negation. (The point here is a perfectly general one: if you already believe or want something to be true, you are likely to accept fairly low standards of argumentation for its truth.)

 

[Solmyr]

If you could collect everything you needed to produce an exact copy of yourself and this copy would be indistinguishable by you or anyone allowing for any test that one might propose, then what you have is your essence.

Actually, what you would have is a perfect copy. You can’t say that the Xerox machine captures the “essence” of a document.

I confess that I do not know what this essence must contain or what limits we can place on it. It appears the Physicalist does.

I am a physicalist, and I have no idea what this “essence” might be.

The definition: “the essence is the collection of attributes which makes the entity what it is”. But this is not helpful. It cannot help us to decide just what are the attributes which make this “cow” what it is.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure it works like that. If I suggest that you are making suppositions, then you have to show that you are not. Purgatory is supposition.

Punishment that fits the crime.

Your belief that justice consists of punishment that fits the crime corresponds perfectly to belief in Purgatory!.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Only if one must put oneself into jeopardy. If one is able to “will” the evil away without any “danger” to oneself, then the sacrifice would be unnecessary.

But you have already said that just willing is insufficient. We must act, in your concept of love, thus make a sacrifice.

You said:

The usual Christian definition of “love” is: “to will the good of the other”. This is not acceptable. One can “will” the good of the other and not act on that “will” and that cannot be called “love”. The other definition “to act in the best interest of the other” would be much better.

I agree with you and so does JPII. It’s OK for us all to agree.

Actions can have a purpose, perhaps this active kind of love you speak of is one of our purposes.

I have trouble seeing purpose as physical or supervening on the physical. It seems more fundamental than physical. Perhaps the physical supervenes on the purpose? But the purpose is more substantial.

Like the substance of a car is that it can take me to work.

 

[Solmyr]

But you have already said that just willing is insufficient. We must act, in your concept of love, thus make a sacrifice.

Well, there are two exceptions. God can just “will” something and it will happen. And when people can act without endangering themselves, there is no sacrifice.

Like the substance of a car is that it can take me to work.

The substance is just a concept. The collection of the attributes, which make something what it is. You cannot sit on an attribute, only on a physical chair.

 

[Bradski]

Your belief that justice consists of punishment that fits the crime corresponds perfectly to belief in Purgatory!.

The eternal reward following it renders it meaningless.

And does murder equate to contraception? Same time in purgatory? Who knows, I wonder. Maybe the child rapist who repents gets time off when the woman who used contraception and doesn’t repent doesn’t.

Hi, what are you in for?
Me? I raped, tortured and murdered some children. You?
My husband put on a condom one time.

Sounds right to some. Let me know what you think.

 

[Frankenfurter]

The substance is just a concept. The collection of the attributes, which make something what it is. You cannot sit on an attribute, only on a physical chair.

Hmmm, that is sounding like it might be part of the essence I am dimly searching for. And I am OK with this essence containing things that are not physical, or cannot be sat upon. I am attempting to clear my eyes of this physical bias that we appear to have.

Someone designed a chair for a purpose. That is part of what the chair is. This is more intrinsic then anything else. Yet I struggle to see that purpose supervening on the physical. It comes from outside instead.

 

[tonyrey]

Your belief that justice consists of punishment that fits the crime corresponds perfectly to belief in Purgatory!

The eternal reward following it renders it meaningless.

Why?

And does murder equate to contraception? Same time in purgatory? Who knows, I wonder. Maybe the child rapist who repents gets time off when the woman who used contraception and doesn’t repent doesn’t.

Time and space don’t exist in purgatory! Failure to repent even for a small offence reveals a degree of pride which is equivalent to rejection of God’s love and makes co-existence in heaven impossible. If a child of yours opposes you indefinitely you are isolated from each other until you are reconciled - if ever…

Hi, what are you in for?
Me? I raped, tortured and murdered some children. You?
My husband put on a condom one time.

Sounds right to some. Let me know what you think.

It depends what you think! The worst evil isn’t found in our actions but in our state of mind. Cold-blooded crime isn’t necessarily evil… It may be pathological.

 

[Bradski]

Failure to repent even for a small offence reveals a degree of pride which is equivalent to rejection of God’s love and makes co-existence in heaven impossible. If a child of yours opposes you indefinitely you are isolated from each other until you are reconciled - if ever…

I’ve been asking my son to fix a light in the garden for quite some time now. He is opposing me in that he finds an excuse every time he comes around not to do it (don’t know where he gets this attitude from…). Are we isolated from each other until he accedes? For ever?

Of course not. It would be nonsense to suggest it. A rift in family relations would take more than a light that doesn’t work. But if he refused something very important to the whole family, then there may well be a rift. It all depends on the situation.

Similarly, I don’t expect someone who wore a condom once to go to hell for eternity. Even if he is proud enough to say - ‘Nope, I will not repent’. That ‘rejection of God’s love’ is not worth a slap on the wrist let alone an eternity of suffering.

Compared to…the child rapist and murderer, who comes to the realization that he has done wrong on his death bed and then spends time in purgatory before (wait for it) eternal bliss. He can say hi to the kids’ mom when he gets there.

Justice? Is there an emoticon that looks like someone snorting?

 

[Solmyr]

Cold-blooded crime isn’t necessarily evil… It may be pathological.

But using a condom once to prevent pregnancy is “evil”. There is no excuse for it.

 

[Solmyr]

Someone designed a chair for a purpose. That is part of what the chair is. This is more intrinsic then anything else. Yet I struggle to see that purpose supervening on the physical. It comes from outside instead.

Sorry, I overlooked this. It is not necessary that something we may call a “chair” would be designed for purpose to sit on it. One might find a strange set of branches, which just happen to be suitable to sit on it. One the other hand one might sit on an artifact that was not designed for sitting, rather to place dishes on it - of course I am talking about a table. But if you sit on it, it will become a de-facto chair. Or if you climb on top of it to replace a light bulb, then it will become a de-facto ladder… Or you can sit on a piece of rock when out on a field trip.

So there is a loose relationship between something that is suitable to sit upon and the designation called “chair”. This whole “essence” is a useless concept. Which attribute is “important” (essential) and which one is “irrelevant” (accidental) depends not only on the object itself, but also the intention of the user.

 

[Frankenfurter]

So there is a loose relationship between something that is suitable to sit upon and the designation called “chair”. This whole “essence” is a useless concept. Which attribute is “important” (essential) and which one is “irrelevant” (accidental) depends not only on the object itself, but** also the intention of the user**.

Intentions are real. They exist outside the physical and they do not supervene.