Life's "ultimate meaning", and the value of money

[Touchstone]

Slap your head until some sense gets in there, since this point is a strawman. Classical Thomistic theology has claimed for the last 700 years that we don’t speak of God univocally, but analogously.

I don’t see those as opposed. “Univocally” doesn’t mean “concrete” or “dereferenced”, but just unified in its semantics, consistent in avoiding overloaded meanings getting confused. We can speak analogously, and equivocate, or not. Univocality in use of analogy is not a contradiction.

Of course, if you want the same “concrete” language between what I mean when I say “tree” and what I mean when I say “ultimate being” you’re not going to get it, but it’s never been claimed this is possible.

I understand, and this is the “substance of fluff”. This is where the fluffiness obtains. I’m not claiming that the various proponents of this kind of language asserted that “ultimate being” was somehow amenable to being made concrete. Manifestly, they shy away from such requirements. But this is the substance of the problem, the indictment of that whole path of inquiry. It wanders into fluff where it loses traction on grounded concepts.

Now this is a very good question. It does, however, show that you aren’t very knowledgeable about classical metaphysics; e.g. the “analogia entis.”

I think “unsatisfied” is really a more apt way to describe it. Analogizing itself is not the problem, but here, it’s impossible to distinguish the concept or entity being analogized from just so many stolen concepts from where the analogical language comes from. “Being” or “essence”, for examples, aren’t distinguishable from simple “imaginations of meaning” for those terms. If I say this something or other is “like a bird”, to process that I would have to have some semantics for the isomorphism – this thing has wings, or somehow can move about the sky, at will, or perhaps “has feathers”, or sings in a way that recalls birdsong. The use of analogy is not problematic, but the analogy itself may well be, if its not even providing the semantics for the isomorphism.

You are quite vague when you say “we can bind the term to our consciousness, our awareness of stimuli.” In all honesty Touchstone, I can’t help but continue to see your bias, particularly here (but also elsewhere, when you make assertions about value obtaining, etc.) You are using language as loosely as your critique of theists repudiates.

That’s as concrete as it gets, isn’t it – stimuli. Electrical activity beginning at sensory organs somewhere in the body terminating in the brain where neurological activity (sensory integration) begins. Do you want Ohm resistance measurements over the wire for this, or is that specific enough?

If you were to argue with yourself here, of it I wanted to, I could continually subject all your terms to scruntiny and say you haven’t said anything at all.

This all gets grounded in real world observation, in empirical (name removed by moderator)uts. Couldn’t be more different than the terms I’m objecting to. You end up having to say “I don’t believ my lyin’ eyes” to this. If you don’t think that’s the case, give it a try. “Consciousness” is not abstract concept like “the convertibility of will to the good”. You are not playing on the same semantic ground I am, here.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Further, classical theism has debated, for 700+ years, how we use the term “being” when we speak of God. Scotists say univocally, Thomists say analogously, Kantians or Fideists say equivocally. This is not a new objection.

Understood. It[s an oldie, but a goodie.

If language is univocal when we are speaking of material things, then we must be talking about essences. Otherwise, everything is “accidental” and no one is really getting what anyone else is saying.No, because it’s just a matter of acceptable tolerances. Every dog, even of the same species, is a different kind of beast, for example. There is no “dog essence”, and this is an idea that science has shown to be a vacuous idea. We say these two dogs are “dogs” as an approximation of the genetic similarity. But every dog is a unique individual, a type unto itself, bearing similarities that are useful for our “chunking” brains, but fundamentally discrete from each other. There are no true types of dog, just “similarities within useful tolerances”.

That doesn’t mean the language of types isn’t useful or effective. We now know that “solid” objects are not really solid in the fundamental way we believed for so long. They are empty space. But even knowing that, we don’t drop the word “solid” in refering to a rock or a baseball bat. It’s useful as it is, we just know on a technical level that it’s a “manner of speaking”. So to, for types and essences. Physic discredits these ideas in their naive, historic form. A type of dog isn’t an actual type – that’s a quaint and archaic view in light of modern biology – but a “collection of closely similar accidentals”, clustered by a shared genealogy. It’s still useful to talk of “types” and “breeds” of dogs, but we know it’s a useful construct, a means of tagging and organization for our purposes, not some kind of metaphysical principle, something that really obtains.

Further, you just said about that “being” is a term “bound to our consciousness.” What is “fluff” if not this?

Consciousness is our warrant for the concept of being. Awareness of stimuli is the grounds for the semantics we deploy for the term. Couldn’t be more basic, immediate, physical, concrete.

I suppose the statement “we can bind being to our consciousness” is free from these errors…

See above – the “binding” is the association of the term with the phenomenon of conscious, the physical, natural apprehension of our surroundings. Couldn’t be more concrete and grounded, semantically.
The Exodus:

The above statement is irrational. A bunch of words, when put together that way, do not convey an intelligible statement.

Maybe it’s sufficient just to say those words, use that way, just convey the appearance of meaning, and do not carry any real semantic freight.

“Communication” implies the exchange of “knowledge.” You ought to read books 2-4 of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

That’s fine, if we allow “holding of concepts” as knowledge. Then that works. As the exchange of real knowledge, true propositions about the state of affairs in the world, that’s a problem. But not our problem here, I think.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Manifestly, they shy away from such requirements. But this is the substance of the problem, the indictment of that whole path of inquiry. It wanders into fluff where it loses traction on grounded concepts.

It doesn’t so much “shy away” as it runs into a wall. We can only get so far when speaking about God. I don’t see this as a problem though, so long as we don’t overstep our epistemic bounds and admit up front we speak of him analogously.

touchstone:

I think “unsatisfied” is really a more apt way to describe it.

You ought to be! And so am I and every theologian. Who would be “satisfied” with any conception or definition of God? Such a thing would necessarily have to leave one unsatisfied.

touchstone:

Analogizing itself is not the problem, but here, it’s impossible to distinguish the concept or entity being analogized from just so many stolen concepts from where the analogical language comes from. “Being” or “essence”, for examples, aren’t distinguishable from simple “imaginations of meaning” for those terms.

Eh you’re starting to wage your war on strawmen here. “Being” is not an “imagination” in the classical sense. It is known through our sensing reality or what is, immediately by the mind, without any illative process of reasoning. It’s not a conceptual a priori. If you think this you’re just misconstruing the classic notion (which is quite easy to do.)

Being is the most intuitive notion we have, actually. This is of course backwards from what you think, since it escapes “definition.” The scholastics have always known this, however, and said it escapes definition because it is not a genus, and all definitions rely on being.

Classical Thomism has always taught that our mind, to the clearest truths, is like the eyes of the owl are to the sun. What is most clear in itself (and, indeed, what is most intuitively known), appears to us unclear, since we must reflect on our act of knowledge, in order to “know what it is we know.”

touchstone:

That’s as concrete as it gets, isn’t it – stimuli.

Well you’re the one who said “being” was bound to our consciousness. I admit, saying how one knows “being” is quite a difficult on materialism.

touchstone:

This all gets grounded in real world observation, in empirical (name removed by moderator)uts.

As is all scholastic theology. All our knowledge comes from sense. Nothing is in the mind which was not first in the senses.

 

[The_Exodus]

Understood. It[s an oldie, but a goodie.

Indeed!

touchstone:

Every dog, even of the same species, is a different kind of beast, for example.

But pushing the problem back to “beast” doesn’t get us anywhere.

touchstone:

There is no “dog essence”, and this is an idea that science has shown to be a vacuous idea. We say these two dogs are “dogs” as an approximation of the genetic similarity. But every dog is a unique individual, a type unto itself…

No one has ever stated that things which are essentially the same can have no differences. Further, if there are no creatures which we call dogs that are “essentially” the same, everything we speak of is particular and therefore entirely different. There is some essential similarity, we must admit, even if we cannot cognize precisely what it is. Otherwise, every time we say the word “dog” we are misspeaking.

touchstone:

That doesn’t mean the language of types isn’t useful or effective.

Sure doesn’t. It would, however, mean that knowledge is impossible, since no words which are passed between people are univocally understood.

touchstone:

Consciousness is our warrant for the concept of being. Awareness of stimuli is the grounds for the semantics we deploy for the term. Couldn’t be more basic, immediate, physical, concrete.

I actually agree here. I think this means pretty much what I intend when I say “Being is known by the mind through sense perception.”

But “being,” of course, is not a “material thing” in and of itself. So I think your claim here has problems for a materialistic worldview. It’s that little word “is” that physicalism can’t put it’s finger on.

touchstone:

Then that works. As the exchange of real knowledge, true propositions about the state of affairs in the world, that’s a problem. But not our problem here, I think.

Ehhhhh. So long as a propositions “truth” is involved (or heck, the possibility of truth in general), it’s always a concern. Otherwise you run the risk of implicitly admitting there is no truth to your position.

This is the irresponsible game and intellectual dishonesty of pragmatism. You can’t sit there and say a thing works, and at the same time say that the word “thing” is meaningless.
[/quote]

 

[Betterave]

This is the irresponsible game and intellectual dishonesty of pragmatism. You can’t sit there and say a thing works, and at the same time say that the word “thing” is meaningless.

…or how the notion of ‘works’ is supposed to get indexed by some allegedly univocal semantics.

 

[Touchstone]

It doesn’t so much “shy away” as it runs into a wall. We can only get so far when speaking about God. I don’t see this as a problem though, so long as we don’t overstep our epistemic bounds and admit up front we speak of him analogously.

“Analogously” as a mode of speaking doesn’t improve the problem. Think about how an analogy works – it draws on isomorphisms between A and B. IIRC, an example a prof used frequently for analogy was “paint is to wall as glove is to hand”. Paint and glove are not the same things, but an analogy can be drawn on the “thin covering” aspect of each. Both glove and paint are a “covering surface” over another surface underneath.

But just a simple example like that shows the problem for “speaking analogously”. The isomorphism presuppose knowledge on both ends of the association. Analogies are useful pedagogically, a way to get a hearer perhaps unfamiliar with the direct concept to understand by teaching through a similar concept that is familiar. But the creator of the analogy has to understand both sides in order for it to hold, must understand paint and wall, glove and hand.

Theology hits the wall just as hard analogously, because no one has the anchoring knowledge to provide a grounded analogy. No one sees or understands in grounded terms the other side of the association.

You ought to be! And so am I and every theologian. Who would be “satisfied” with any conception or definition of God? Such a thing would necessarily have to leave one unsatisfied.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was “unsatisfied as to its basic coherence”, it’s utility in reasoning or evaluation. I certainly can share in the same dissatisfaction that more answers are not available to more depth, but what I was getting at there was dissatisfaction with the discourse as even intelligible, once we get so far afield, detached from grounded concepts.

Eh you’re starting to wage your war on strawmen here. “Being” is not an “imagination” in the classical sense. It is known through our sensing reality or what is, immediately by the mind, without any illative process of reasoning. It’s not a conceptual a priori. If you think this you’re just misconstruing the classic notion (which is quite easy to do.)

No I don’t see that as an analytical a priori, but like you, an immediate apprehension. But that is its grounding, in tanglible experience. You can “watch” your consciousness bubble and froth in your brain as it computes away, if you have the right machinery hooked up to your head. You can witness, with sadness, the loss of consciousness, as a dying person’s body fails, and resigns it mental processing. These are not abstract concepts. This is visceral biology, empirically witnessed.

Being is the most intuitive notion we have, actually.

I agree, but it’s not only that, at least not anymore. We have knowledge available that augments and fortifies this intuition, and explicates it in a natural, physiological consciousness. We no longer have the “knowledge vacuum” that supports the idea of the “cognitive self” as some abstract, disembodied mind. Knowledge and science confirm our intuitions of being (of course), but also provide grounded concepts for how that obtains in the real world we are apprehending.

This is of course backwards from what you think, since it escapes “definition.” The scholastics have always known this, however, and said it escapes definition because it is not a genus, and all definitions rely on being.

As above, it’s not an intuition in isolation, at least not like it used to be. We have experience, data, knowledge that support functional, testable, practical definitions for what that intuition apprehends. “Consciousness” is not just an intuitive apprehension, but also a physiological phenomenon. Something concrete, natural, phenomenal.

Well you’re the one who said “being” was bound to our consciousness. I admit, saying how one knows “being” is quite a difficult on materialism.

Well, it’s difficult because it doesn’t admit of just make stuff up. It proceeds economically, from the constraints of experience and observation, with reason applied. But it’s that very difficulty that elevates above the fluff of theological musings, which suffer no difficulties whatsover, and operate completely unconstrained by the hard edges and limits of the real world. But that said, materialist ideas of “being” and “consciousness” are grounded in biology and physiology. It’s burdened by the difficulties of acquiring real knowledge, but it eschews the fluff.

As is all scholastic theology. All our knowledge comes from sense. Nothing is in the mind which was not first in the senses.

Yeah, and even that is overthrown by science. We are born with a great store of knowledge – instinct, and other patterns and responses that are hardwired into us. The way we survive as a species, the way any species survives is by propagating stored information about the real world environment to its progeny. The baby deer knows, from birth to be skittish, paranoid, alert, hyper-vigilant. This is ‘biological knowledge’ it inherits from its parents and all the ancestors before them.

The baby knows to suck from Mama’s breast the moment it is born, even though all its food has previously come through the umbilical. The sucking reflex is part of her equipment, knowledge for life she doesn’t learn, but inherits biological.

That’s off topic, but it’s just another example of the kind of simplistic naïvete that runs through scholastic and medieval thinking. Not so much a demerit for them, as they didn’t have the benefit of the knowledge we do now, but the romance and appreciation for that stuff now, in light of all that’s happened since, well, that’s just hard to reconcile, I think.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

But pushing the problem back to “beast” doesn’t get us anywhere.

Yes it does, and somewhere profound. There are no types, there are no forms, as types and forms in and of themselves. Push it past ‘beast’, all the way to ‘organism’ and beyond. You have configurations of basic elements, to various degrees of complexity and scale, but all are accidentals. “Types” and “Forms” are just handy ways for feeble human brains to quantize, to “bucketize” a world of innumerable accidentals. What we see as “clustered accidentals” due to genealogy (or perhaps some other dynamic) we refer to, pragmatically, as a “type”. It’s a simple symbol that names a set of things that is cumbersome to enumerate.

But nature, the extramental world, knows no ‘types’, biologically. A photon, or even an atom (perhaps) is coherent to describe as a “type” or a “form”, at least in the sense of unity; every hydrogen atom is precisely like every other one. There are no “configurations” of X that make a photon a photon. A photon is a fundamental. And that I can see being a cogent object for the term “form”. But in what we casually, or even philosophical suppose are “types” or “forms” are pure mental constructs. Nature has no such thing as a “type” of dog, or “type” of anything biological, or any “form” that is fundamental, or formal per se. These are just crude ways for humans to process what is deeply challenging to understand. It’s practical useful and effective, so we embrace it. But to suppose that “types” or “forms” obtain from the things we see, as existential realities, is to confuse crude human mental approximations with what is being approximated.

No one has ever stated that things which are essentially the same can have no differences.

Fine. But that’s not my claim. There’s nothing meaningful in the term “essentially the same”. They are “practically the same” in the very same sense. There’s no essence there, any more than has person “has walking-ness”. Walking is a real phenomenon, but it’s not a quality, or a structure or a substance of a person. It’s just a label for a certain type of behavior of the (parts of the) person. There’s no “essence of dog”, there is just genes of dog, driving cells, enzymes, proteins and lipids of dog, all interacting in complex ways that we label “essence” in the same way we label “walking”.

It not that differences can’t obtain, it’s that the “sames” the concept of “essence” relies on do not obtain.

Further, if there are no creatures which we call dogs that are “essentially” the same, everything we speak of is particular and therefore entirely different.

They are entirely distinct, unique, each a ‘type of one’. And in that sense there are fundamentally different. But “entirely” is too strong. The similarities two dogs accidentally share (by geneology, say) are simliarities, “samenesses”, which militates against “entirely different”. They are the same or similar in many practical, if accidental, ways. But I agree that any two dogs are fiundamentally different in that the are fundamentally distinct, having no “intrinsic sameness” beyond the similarity of their genes, their morphology, their psychology, etc.

There is some essential similarity, we must admit, even if we cannot cognize precisely what it is. Otherwise, every time we say the word “dog” we are misspeaking.

No, it’s not misspeaking. It’s effective, clean communication. You might as well say we should not refer to a rock as “solid”, as that, technically is “misspeaking” on the same objection you are offering here. It is crude and naïve for the purposes of physics and natural understanding, but that’s just not the needed context in many cases, so it’s not an issue. “Solid” or “dog” are perfectly effective as descriptions to convey the meaning and concepts we intend, even if a solid rock isn’t really solid in the strict physical sense, or if there are no true, actual “types” which me might associate with an “idealized dog”.

Sure doesn’t. It would, however, mean that knowledge is impossible, since no words which are passed between people are univocally understood.

It only needs to be univocal in context. A physicist would not suppose he is protected from gamma rays by a concrete, “solid” wall. A police offer would suppose that concrete, “solid” wall offers protection from a swinging bat, or even a speeding bullet. So long as we can keep our senses straight in context, we can and do speak univocally about such things.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

The Exodus:

I actually agree here. I think this means pretty much what I intend when I say “Being is known by the mind through sense perception.”

But “being,” of course, is not a “material thing” in and of itself. So I think your claim here has problems for a materialistic worldview. It’s that little word “is” that physicalism can’t put it’s finger on.

I think that on materialism, “being” is a “material thing”, a natural phenomenon, in and of itself. One of the aspects of materialism that commends it is that it doesn’t have to fluff on the word “is”, in the way a theist or supernaturalist/dualist has to. “Is” is a natural phenomenon, on that view, and as grounded and practically accessible as any other natural phenomenon. Dualists don’t agree with the position, but monist materialism, right or wrong, does not have to equivocate or spew fluff on “being” or “is”. That’s what causes the violent, allergic reactions like Tonyrey’s here to materialism – here is a practical, natural, grounded model for “being”, and it’s sheer tangibility and groundedness is traumatizing because it doesn’t have any of the required and precious fluff that we are conceitfully attracted to.

Ehhhhh. So long as a propositions “truth” is involved (or heck, the possibility of truth in general), it’s always a concern. Otherwise you run the risk of implicitly admitting there is no truth to your position.

Sure, don’t have a problem with that. My point there was just that communication can be clear and effective, even if knowledge isn’t imparted (knowledge apart from ‘I know this is the idea I want to get across to you’, that is.).

This is the irresponsible game and intellectual dishonesty of pragmatism. You can’t sit there and say a thing works, and at the same time say that the word “thing” is meaningless.

Maybe not, but I don’t recognize that a complaint I’ve registered, that “thing” is meaningless. That seems a term we can attached to practical, grounded concepts, as part of our demonstration or explication of how things work. Even such an intangible, intractable “thing” as a quark we can ground conceptual in the effects it has on the environment around it, the traces it leaves as evidence for its “thingness”. As above, “being” is a practical, grounded concept on materialism. Why you think that’s dishonest or irresponsible, I can’t guess. Maybe you can expand on that.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

That’s what causes the violent, allergic reactions like Tonyrey’s here to materialism – here is a practical, natural, grounded model for “being”, and its sheer tangibility and groundedness is traumatizing because it doesn’t have any of the required and precious fluff that we are conceitfully attracted to.

You’re grounded all right! Limited to what you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. Your model is traumatizing because it deprives life of everything that is precious and reduces it to bare existence, a view at odds with your enjoyment and appreciation of life. In effect you are a Puritan materialist in your rejection of the finer aspects of life as conceits! For you to be attracted is to be deceived! Beware of pleasure… You believe our view is too good to be true whereas we believe your view is too bad to be true. At least our thoughts are consistent with our feelings… Who said Christianity is a mournful religion? It is infinitely more joyful than materialism…

 

[The_Exodus]

“Analogously” as a mode of speaking doesn’t improve the problem.

It does improve it. It just doesn’t solve it.

touchstone:

But the creator of the analogy has to understand both sides in order for it to hold

It must comprehend both sides to comprehend all that is implied. This isn’t the case however, since Scholasticism doesn’t admit to comprehension, but “remote” knowledge.

touchstone:

No one sees or understands in grounded terms the other side of the association.

Err, correct

…except by analogy.

touchstone:

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was “unsatisfied as to its basic coherence”

Well since you think reality can obtain actual contraditions which the mind cannot co-here (such as something coming from nothing, or an effect without a cause, or becoming coming from non-being), then I don’t really see your objection holding any weight…unless you wish to turn it on your own claims.

touchstone:

No I don’t see that as an analytical a priori, but like you, an immediate apprehension. But that is its grounding, in tanglible experience. You can “watch” your consciousness bubble and froth in your brain as it computes away, if you have the right machinery hooked up to your head. You can witness, with sadness, the loss of consciousness, as a dying person’s body fails, and resigns it mental processing. These are not abstract concepts. This is visceral biology, empirically witnessed.

Which you “witness” through sense perception…correct. Dunno how all the scientific “physicalist” language gets you any closer to that or buys you any more property here.

touchstone:

I agree, but it’s not only that, at least not anymore. We have knowledge available that augments and fortifies this intuition, and explicates it in a natural, physiological consciousness. We no longer have the “knowledge vacuum” that supports the idea of the “cognitive self” as some abstract, disembodied mind. Knowledge and science confirm our intuitions of being (of course), but also provide grounded concepts for how that obtains in the real world we are apprehending.

Hmm… okie dokie. Not even sure what to address here. “Knowledge vacuum” and “disembodied mind” both look like new comers to the discussion.

touchstone:

As above, it’s not an intuition in isolation, at least not like it used to be.

It’s never been claimed to be an “intuition in isolation.” Unless the body sensed reality, being would not be intuited.

touchstone:

But it’s that very difficulty that elevates above the fluff of theological musings, which suffer no difficulties whatsover, and operate completely unconstrained by the hard edges and limits of the real world. But that said, materialist ideas of “being” and “consciousness” are grounded in biology and physiology. It’s burdened by the difficulties of acquiring real knowledge, but it eschews the fluff.

And you’ve here said zilch about how it is you intuit being, or what it is, materialistically. All you’ve ended up saying is that it is sensed or “witnessed” by biological processes.

See, this is why I like the medievals. They say in one sentence what you keep on and on about for multiple paragraphs.

touchstone:

This is ‘biological knowledge’ it inherits from its parents and all the ancestors before them.

Instinct ain’t knowledge homie, and never has been claimed to be so by the Scholastics. This distinction has been made time and time again, and is why they call man, not just an animal, but a “rational” animal.

 

[The_Exodus]

Yes it does, and somewhere profound.

I think you’re confusing profundity with absurdity.

touchstone:

A photon, or even an atom (perhaps) is coherent to describe as a “type” or a “form”, at least in the sense of unity

Then we can speak of essences.

touchstone:

A photon is a fundamental.

Nice dogmatic, essentialist statement here. I would agree!

touchstone:

But in what we casually, or even philosophical suppose are “types” or “forms” are pure mental constructs.

Wait a sec…wha…? So is a photon fundamental or not?

Or are we back to Kant’s categories again?

touchstone:

There’s nothing meaningful in the term “essentially the same”.

So a photon isn’t fundamental then…right?

touchstone:

It’s just a label for a certain type of behavior of the (parts of the) person.

Dunno what you mean by “person,” since you must be speaking about a certain “phenomena” I have no univocal understanding of.

touchstone:

There’s no “essence of dog”, there is just genes of dog

It’s odd you don’t even realize that you rely on the reality of essences even to refute them…e.g. “there is no dog essence, only genes of dogs.” Genes of what?? Dogs?? What are they??

touchstone:

It not that differences can’t obtain, it’s that the “sames” the concept of “essence” relies on do not obtain.

Then when you say “genes” and “lipids” and “proteins” you are talking about…err…undefinable phenomena, right?

Do you not see how this makes every definition you give incoherent?

touchstone:

No, it’s not misspeaking. It’s effective, clean communication.

It sure ain’t, since I have no idea now what you mean by “photon”, “protein,” “lipid,” or “dog” now that you’ve said everything is accidental and all language is equivocal.

touchstone:

It only needs to be univocal in context.

Univocal in the context of other univocal things, yes. Univocal in the context of absurdity and incoherence, no.

 

[The_Exodus]

I think that on materialism, “being” is a “material thing”, a natural phenomenon, in and of itself.

Ok, how much does it weigh, or what color is it?

I don’t want an example of something that has being, but being itself, if you don’t mind, since it is, after all, a material “thing.”

touchstone:

My point there was just that communication can be clear and effective, even if knowledge isn’t imparted.

Curious, very curious. We can communicate without actually saying anything to one another, or by spouting off absurdities. I never knew!

touchstone:

As above, “being” is a practical, grounded concept on materialism.

Then what is it??

 

[Touchstone]

It must comprehend both sides to comprehend all that is implied. This isn’t the case however, since Scholasticism doesn’t admit to comprehension, but “remote” knowledge.

Hmm, that’s a term I’m not familiar with – “remote” knowledge. Can you give me an example?

Err, correct

…except by analogy.

Even then, you’d have to see both sides to make the analogy. If you are associating A and B, but B is unknown, and unknowable, whence your analogy? Or is this the “remote knowledge” thing, here? Gnosticism?

Well since you think reality can obtain actual contraditions which the mind cannot co-here (such as something coming from nothing, or an effect without a cause, or becoming coming from non-being), then I don’t really see your objection holding any weight…unless you wish to turn it on your own claims.

I’ve no problem turning it on my own claims. That reality may have some features that are unintelligible to a human mind does not deny the intelligibility of other features of reality that the human mind can apprehend. It sounds like you suppose that if there are unkowable things, then nothing is knowable. Doesn’t follow, if so.

Which you “witness” through sense perception…correct. Dunno how all the scientific “physicalist” language gets you any closer to that or buys you any more property here.

It just provides the substance of experience for our understanding. We can understand a feature of our consciousness through knowledge of how our eyesight works, and how visual integration happens inside the brain, for example. It’s provides empirical content for one facet of our consciousness. It’s physical, natural, measurable, empirical, and gives extension in phenomenal terms to what we mean by “aware” or “conscious”.

Hmm… okie dokie. Not even sure what to address here. “Knowledge vacuum” and “disembodied mind” both look like new comers to the discussion.

The point is that natural accounts are grounded in empirical observation and physical models. Things we can see, touch, test, verify, falsify when they’re incorrect. On dualism, it’s all just magic, behind the supernatural veil, and nothing more can be said about it. There are no measurements, no observations, no falsification, no verification, no nothin’ that distinguishes any belief along those lines from any other, “true” and “false”, and “real” and “unreal” being rendered meaningless in that context.

It’s never been claimed to be an “intuition in isolation.” Unless the body sensed reality, being would not be intuited.

But the sensing is the end of the road. It’s the edge of the island, unless one starts to admit natural descriptions and explanations, things that admit of that very same awareness, the ability to see, touch, smell, measure, gauge, test, compare, falsify. On naturalism, the intuition can be built upon with natural models and descriptions which provide meaning and substance for what that intuition of “being” actually implicates in the real world we perceive. Dualism doesn’t and can’t go anywhere on that, at least the non-natural “half” of the dualist model.

And you’ve here said zilch about how it is you intuit being, or what it is, materialistically. All you’ve ended up saying is that it is sensed or “witnessed” by biological processes.

Yes, that’s the point. There is NO essence of the intution. It is phenomenal. To ask “what it is” is to invoke infinite regress. There cannot be any ultimate “is”, only descriptions that work. For any “what it is” you give an answer to, that answer just gets “quined”, and you then immediately have to answer to “OK, then what makes that what it is?”. And on and on ad infinitum.

As you have it, the answer you are wondering about – “what it is”, is a beg toward an ultimate, unknowable answer. Unless you believe you can reify an infinite chain of questions, it’s an unanswerable question. We can, in the alternative, point to what does work, experientially: descriptions and natural models for what it means to be “conscious”.

See, this is why I like the medievals. They say in one sentence what you keep on and on about for multiple paragraphs.

Yes, and trite always beats thoughtful, and actual. Too simple by half is the problem, and that’s putting it charitably.

Instinct ain’t knowledge homie, and never has been claimed to be so by the Scholastics. This distinction has been made time and time again, and is why they call man, not just an animal, but a “rational” animal.

That’s fine, but it was apparently lost on them that the physiology that made them rational also provided the intuitional impulses that thwarted or distort it (sometimes for perfectly good evolutionary reasons). That’s fine, they were clueless about all that, as they had no way to know at that point. But we do now.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Hmm, that’s a term I’m not familiar with – “remote” knowledge.

It has to do with the analogia entis and via negativa, the first of which is the object of discussion presently.

touchstone:

Even then, you’d have to see both sides to make the analogy. If you are associating A and B, but B is unknown, and unknowable…etc

The distinction made here is that God is: Unknowable in form/essence, yes (i.e. what he is); unknowable in effects (i.e. that he is) no.

touchstone:

I’ve no problem turning it on my own claims… It sounds like you suppose that if there are unkowable things, then nothing is knowable. Doesn’t follow, if so.

Not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying if you admit things are inherently contradictory (i.e. some-thing can come “from” no-thing), then dialogue is over. You’ve patently rejected any rules or parameters for meaningul communication, because everything you say can be true and false simultaneously.

You also don’t seem to be getting this very fundamental point: a thing can be unknown to us, yet able to be known, in and of itself. There may be (and, I think, there are) all sorts of unknowable things (God being the best example), but I don’t think it possible for anything - even a thing unknowable, or a thing beyond my ken - to be absurd or contradictory. I don’t think God could have created the universe and also not created it. Niether do I think it possible for being to come “out of” or “from” non-being.

There’s a limit to our knowledge, of course, and it is only because I respect and even admire that limit, that I don’t destroy knowledge altogether and say “eh…well anything is possible, even the impossible.” Just because a thing may be beyond our comprehension, doesn’t mean we are justified in claiming that absurdities actually obtain.

touchstone:

It just provides the substance of experience for our understanding…etc

Ok, same old song…ergo we intuit being from sense perception.

touchstone:

On dualism, it’s all just magic, behind the supernatural veil, and nothing more can be said about it.

Oh my. You think the Scholastic view is dualistic? Eeeek!

touchstone:

There are no measurements, no observations, no falsification, no verification, no nothin’ that distinguishes any belief along those lines from any other, “true” and “false”, and “real” and “unreal” being rendered meaningless in that context.

This is just about as erroneous as it gets (unless you think contradictories can obtain.)

touchstone:

Yes, that’s the point. There is NO essence of the intution. It is phenomenal.

Well you’re the one who said “being is a material thing.”

touchstone:

To ask “what it is” is to invoke infinite regress.

If you (try to) deny substances/essences, yes. You will keep trying to define the definition, instead of stopping at “man” or “tree” as final.

Btw, you make a very old observation (2000+ years.) For some reason, people think positivism has made “leaps and bounds” in this area, but that’s because they are ignorant of ancient philosophy.

Here’s Aristotle’s refutation of this objection:

“First of all, then, it is evident that this at least is true, that the term to be or not to be signifies something, so that not everything will be so and not so. 334. Again, if the term man signifies one thing, let this be a twofooted animal. 335. Now by signifying one thing I mean this: granted that man is a twofooted animal, then if something is a man, this will be what being a man is. And it makes no difference even if someone were to say that this term signifies many things, provided that there are a definite number; for a different term might be assigned to each concept. I mean, for example, that if one were to say that the term man signifies not one thing but many, one of which would have a single concept, namely, two-footed animal, there might still be many others, if only there are a limited number; for a particular term might be assigned to each concept. However, if this were not the case, but one were to say that a term signifies an infinite number of things, evidently reasoning would be impossible; for not to signify one thing is to signify nothing. And if words signify nothing, there will be no discourse with another or even with ourselves. For it is impossible to understand anything unless one understands one thing; but if this does happen, a term may be assigned to this thing. Let it be assumed, then, as we said at the beginning (332), that a term signifies something, and that it signifies one thing.” Metaphysica Chapter 4

 

[Betterave]

You’re grounded all right! Limited to what you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. Your model is traumatizing because it deprives life of everything that is precious and reduces it to bare existence, a view at odds with your enjoyment and appreciation of life. In effect you are a Puritan materialist in your rejection of the finer aspects of life as conceits! For you to be attracted is to be deceived! Beware of pleasure… You believe our view is too good to be true whereas we believe your view is too bad to be true. At least our thoughts are consistent with our feelings… Who said Christianity is a mournful religion? It is infinitely more joyful than materialism…

With due respect, Tony, this is mostly all wrong. For one, TS is not at all limited, whether in what he *knows *or in what he *claims *to know, to what he can see, hear, etc. Even if he claimed he was, that would still be ridiculous nonsense, i.e., he would be mistaken. For two, TS’s problem is mainly that he is limited IN what he can see (i.e., understand) (because of the ideological straitjacket he’s wearing), it’s certainly not that he is limited TO what he can see (i.e., sense).

 

[Betterave]

Curious, very curious. We can communicate without actually saying anything to one another, or by spouting off absurdities. I never knew!

Strangely enough, this actually appears to be TS’s model for ‘productive’ communication. I quote: “…I think I can point to discussions with theists here which are productive and move along in the discussion, even if the disagreements remain…” (see post 108). Of course the problem here is that the serious objections raised against TS’s claims remain - specifically, they remain unaddressed by TS. Instead he just falls back on the generic groundless claim that stuff he doesn’t want to/doesn’t know how to deal with is ‘fluff.’

 

[tonyrey]

You’re grounded all right! Limited to what you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. Your model is traumatizing because it deprives life of everything that is precious and reduces it to bare existence, a view at odds with your enjoyment and appreciation of life. In effect you are a Puritan materialist in your rejection of the finer aspects of life as conceits! For you to be attracted is to be deceived! Beware of pleasure… You believe our view is too good to be true whereas we believe your view is too bad to be true. At least our thoughts are consistent with our feelings… Who said Christianity is a mournful religion? It is infinitely more joyful than materialism…

With respect, Betterave, I base my conclusion on the fact that he regards truth as an “isomorph” of atomic particles. You haven’t come to grips with the full extent of his reductive materialism… In his scheme of things there is nothing intangible whatsoever. All our mental and physical activity amounts to rearrangements of atomic particles…

 

[Betterave]

With respect, Betterave, I base my conclusion on the fact that he regards truth as an “isomorph” of atomic particles. You haven’t come to grips with the full extent of his reductive materialism… In his scheme of things there is nothing intangible whatsoever. All our mental and physical activity amounts to rearrangements of atomic particles…

Okay, but you’ve completely ignored my point.

 

[tonyrey]

A deer values its own life. Try to approach one, sometime, it will run away in fear, nervous that you are threat to its well being.

Instinct not evaluation.

If there was no God or gods, would life be valuable objectively? You’ve proposed a truth (er, value) that even God cannot control. God is subordinate to the ‘value of existence’.

God is not subordinate to the value of existence because God is existence! That was the great insight of the Hebrews: “He Who Is”.

In that case, yes, existence would have ultimate value, having primacy even over God, but we would still need a “valuer” to make “value” coherent.

The Ultimate Value does not require prevaluation. God does not need to confer value on His own existence.

God would create life, in subordination to the higher truth he serves, but that value would still be subjective, even if ultimate, because it obtains in the valuing.

Since God is the Supreme Being He would not be God if He were subordinated! He cannot serve a higher truth because He is Truth!

Clarity on this will come from telling me if godless, impersonal universe which exists, but has no minds, will or persons anywhere has “intrinsic” value.

A godless, impersonal universe cannot have any value because it cannot exist!

A materialist can now just assert, like you, that “life is intrinsically valuable”, and you’d be obligated to accept that, for he is simply appealing to the ultimacy of value that you are.

Life cannot have meaning or value without God because neither life nor anything else can exist without God! So your question does not arise… Life is valuable because of the opportunities it offers but opportunities presuppose a Source of opportunities.

I recognize my daughter, and by production, since I value my daughter, when I look at her, I see a person I value. But I don’t “see the value” – that’s just a façon de parler. I see something that I happen to value, and so I combine them by saying I “see my beloved daughter”. There’s no “belovedness” in my visual stimuli. “Belovedness” is something I overlay on top of that stimuli, cognitively.

You value your daughter not because her value exists in your mind but because she is valuable. Try telling her she is valuable only because you think she is valuable! See what her reaction will be… And if her mother tells you you’re only valuable because she thinks you’re valuable you wouldn’t be very impressed! Wouldn’t you say “Is that the only reason?” ?

I’m happy to be here, and am enjoying the experience on the whole.

In other words you believe life is valuable because it is a source of enjoyment.

It’s good to exist on his say so, though, which supports my point. You even allowed as much there, by saying “Everything is good because He created it”.

I did not say everything is good because He created it. I said He created life knowing it is good to exist, i.e. He knows it is good to exist and share existence with others.

“Goodness of existence” would be the ultimate God, over Yahweh or anything else then, and something that we ought to worship just as Yahweh worships it.
I think you will find that a confused rendering of Catholic theology, that God’s nature defines goodness, and doesn’t merely submit to superior and prior virtues apart from him.

God’s nature does not define goodness. God is goodness! It was not for nothing that Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”.

Now the materialist can appeal to an “ultimate value” along with you. You’re not able to discount such a notion on materialism, for you subscribe to such a notion prior to and superior to any God yourself.

Again you are making an artificial distinction between God, existence and goodness. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love converge in the Ultimate Source of everything…

Is your argument is valuable only because you think it is valuable? Is it valueless - regardless of its merit - if you **think **it is valueless?

Then why does the deer run, when you approach? Do you suppose it doesn’t value its life? Have you ever interacted with wild animals? Why run away if you don’t value your life?

Having lived in Africa for fifteen years I’m well aware that animals run away from predators not because they consciously value their lives but because they associate predators with danger. Fight and flight are physical defence mechanisms, not rationally motivated actions. They don’t have the abstract thought “It is necessary for me to run away because that predator will kill me if I stay here”! Some animals brought up in captivity don’t run away from predators but that doesn’t mean they don’t value their lives. It simply means they are creatures of habit. They don’t even know what “value” means…

 

[tonyrey]

Okay, but you’ve completely ignored my point.

Then let me put it like this. He **thinks **he is limited but in fact he isn’t - just as he thinks his daughter’s value is only his opinion but in fact it isn’t.