“Dead” means “no longer alive.” Hence, it is only analytically logical to say that whoever is now dead, was once alive.How does Aristotle explain god and our evolution of consciousness? The only way I know to in short explain consciousness coming about is from karma and the 10 links of dependant origination. And thats not Hellenistic. If it matters. Yes it includes reincarnation which is taught in mysticism. After all doesn’t it make sense that if your dead you must’ve been alive? Same goes with if you’re alive you must’ve been dead.
Nothing started it all. It has been going on from beginningless time. But then again we know god is not in time. These comparative philosophies can get confusing unless you really know what you’re doing and understand it. I have no catholic alternative to dependent origination. That’s what I want is the catholic answer.“Dead” means “no longer alive.” Hence, it is only analytically logical to say that whoever is now dead, was once alive.
The converse, isn’t true at all. “Alive” is not defined as “no longer dead.” One can be alive without ever having been dead.
If you hold dependent origination, what started it all? Ignorance? Is ignorance a power, that it can create?
With all due respect, I don’t think dependent origination is a viable option. All it says is that in stage 3 karma generates consciousness… but this is unsubstantiated. If you want, I can make up a numeric system describing the stages of conscious development and it can sounds really good… but that doesn’t make it true. For all that, you may as well turn to the materialist explanation of consciousness and its development. Likewise, materialism is also insignificant. Any philosopher will tell you that consciousness is still a mystery as to what it is and how it works. That’s all we have to go on now.Nothing started it all. It has been going on from beginningless time. But then again we know god is not in time. These comparative philosophies can get confusing unless you really know what you’re doing and understand it. I have no catholic alternative to dependent origination. That’s what I want is the catholic answer.
As far as believing rocks are alive I personaly believe that the mineral is the most dormant form of consciousness. Maybe not even being conscience but dormant. Plants have a little more consciousness and then to the animal and us.To my knowledge he does not say much on it. One issue is semantics, the Greeks will talk about the soul and use certain terms to define the soul that we would define as consciousness. Aristotle does have many things to say about the soul and if you are interested you can read his work De Anima. Your question, however, concerns the development of consciousness. Though it is on my reading list, I have not yet read De Anima, so I am not sure if he mentions it. If he does though, he will probably refer to it as the soul and not as consciousness.
If I had to take a guess and vicariously speak through Aristotle, I imagine that he would say that one’s consciousness develops as one moves and interacts with the world. I know for Plato, who was Aristotle’s teacher, believed in forms. Plato taught the preexistence of the soul which dwells in the realm of the forms. When the soul is united with a body, it forgets everything and so “learning” is really just the soul remembering the forms it forgot. Aristotle was much less concerned with the abstract realm of forms and was more concerned with finding knowledge by interacting with the physical realm. I looked over the 10 points (only mine had 12 points). I think it is a very interesting description of the development of consciousness, but I don’t think it provides an adequate answer of how or why. I think certain points also use certain assumptions and presuppositions incompatible or at least foreign with the Christian worldview.
Moreover, I think the Hindu description lacks any biological component in its description. Not to say that I think consciousness can be explained exclusively through physical means, but there is blatantly a physical element to the development of ones consciousness. It takes a while for the human brain to develop. Eventually it develops the capacity for consciousness. This could lead to a whole separate debate and discussion about the material and immaterial elements of consciousness, so I digress.
As far as your comment on reincarnation, how would you have come to that conclusion? A rock is not dead because it was never alive. If God were to imbue a rock with some sort of life we would say that the rock “came to life” not that it stopped being dead. A dead thing can come back to life, but that is resurrection, not reincarnation. Properly speaking, reincarnation teaches that death is the end of one life and the beginning of a new life by recycling the same soul. If you believe in the immortality of the soul do you believe that the soul is alive, dead, or neither? If alive, than the soul has life without ever being dead. To say it is dead seems absurd. If you say neither it would seem that the term immortality is inappropriate.
To end, God breathed life into Adam and “He became a living soul.” There is no preexistence or reincarnation of the soul here, the soul began. As far as the mystery of consciousness and its development, it is still a mystery, and I don’t think the 10(12) principles brings any clarity outside of describing some of the steps that development takes. Sorry that the post was so long and I hope I didn’t just rant without hitting your OP/question, at least to some degree.
I agree that the buddhist idea may not be explaining a biological component. God is timeless but is there some component of us that is timeless? God created body soul and spirit but is there something to us other than that. Catholicism teaches the fall but not that there have continually been numerous “falls” and redemptions. They’re really not the same story.Moreover, I think the Hindu description lacks any biological component in its description. Not to say that I think consciousness can be explained exclusively through physical means, but there is blatantly a physical element to the development of ones consciousness. It takes a while for the human brain to develop. Eventually it develops the capacity for consciousness. This could lead to a whole separate debate and discussion about the material and immaterial elements of consciousness, so I digress.
Interesting. Why do you believe that? What led you to that belief?As far as believing rocks are alive I personaly believe that the mineral is the most dormant form of consciousness. Maybe not even being conscience but dormant. Plants have a little more consciousness and then to the animal and us.
What makes you think there have been numerous falls and redemptions? And God is timeless because God is the prime mover, pure act, and of perfect simplicity. All created things are in time, and not timeless. “In te beginning God created the heavens and the earth” which means the beginning of time was in God’s act of creating, namely the heavens and te earth. You are not timeless. Otherwise how could there have been “past” or “future” falls or redemptions? It seems like your making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions because you have been dabbling with a lot of foreign philosophies and instead of looking at things critically, have started to be dragged away by their exotic and mystic allure. I could be wrong, all I am saying is that is what would appear to me to be the case.I agree that the buddhist idea may not be explaining a biological component. God is timeless but is there some component of us that is timeless? God created body soul and spirit but is there something to us other than that. Catholicism teaches the fall but not that there have continually been numerous “falls” and redemptions. They’re really not the same story.
We do have one, I think. It’s called ‘fullness of life’. God is true Life as are the words and person of Jesus as is the Holy Spirit who is also God, the indweller. Consciousness (which is really the indwelling God) evolves only relatively to (and not dependent upon) our understanding of it because God is not diminished by our sin or ignorance, whatever the case may be. Our human spirit becomes more like God after it mingles with the indweller and, as an example, becomes familiar with it’s way, which in this world is selfless love in service of other.Nothing started it all. It has been going on from beginningless time. But then again we know god is not in time. These comparative philosophies can get confusing unless you really know what you’re doing and understand it. I have no catholic alternative to dependent origination. That’s what I want is the catholic answer.
I agree that they are alive, plants and animals. Both may have their matter “assumed” by the human person through eating. So may minerals be assumed. All can do biological work.As far as believing rocks are alive I personaly believe that the mineral is the most dormant form of consciousness. Maybe not even being conscience but dormant. Plants have a little more consciousness and then to the animal and us.
My understanding of the Buddhist concept of dependent origination is that has to do with the Four-Fold path: the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from it. It is not a description of the evolution of consciousness. It is made up of twelve components or links which act over one’s the past, present and future lives. They are the factors that keep one returning to this world. The ultimate goal is to achieve liberation. The concept of dependent origination helps the person realize the impermanence and illusoriness of the self and thereby attain liberation. In Buddhism, there seem to be three basic schools of thought regarding creation: one being a pantheistic evolutionary view, another that would hold that the cycle of rebirth has no beginning or end and the third that understands the world as having a Creator.How does Aristotle explain god and our evolution of consciousness? The only way I know to in short explain consciousness coming about is from karma and the 10 links of dependant origination. And thats not Hellenistic. If it matters. Yes it includes reincarnation which is taught in mysticism. After all doesn’t it make sense that if your dead you must’ve been alive? Same goes with if you’re alive you must’ve been dead.
I have heard it referred to as non-theist. As a creator God isn’t considered to my knowledge nor denied it’s really not theistic or atheistic. As christianity teaches us to bear our sorrows and grin. The Buddha looked at people being born, living in suffering and sickness and dying. He said none of these things need to be and that all suffering is self induced by ignorance understanding that our sorrows are self induced ignorance and can be stopped sounds better to me than endure your sorrows and bear it. Even if we can lay them at the cross IMO.My understanding of the Buddhist concept of dependent origination is that has to do with the Four-Fold path: the problem of suffering and how to free ourselves from it. It is not a description of the evolution of consciousness. It is made up of twelve components or links which act over one’s the past, present and future lives. They are the factors that keep one returning to this world. The ultimate goal is to achieve liberation. The concept of dependent origination helps the person realize the impermanence and illusoriness of the self and thereby attain liberation. In Buddhism, there seem to be three basic schools of thought regarding creation: one being a pantheistic evolutionary view, another that would hold that the cycle of rebirth has no beginning or end and the third that understands the world as having a Creator.
There are things that I seem to know by just being here: that there is a Creator beyond creation, that an ordered and knowable creation comes into existence as a result of His eternal act of being which is a giving of Himself to His creation and is of infinite beauty. That’s about as far as my mind can go in eliciting fundamental truths within me. The rest is mystery which I have to go to outside sources to reveal.I have heard it referred to as non-theist. As a creator God isn’t considered to my knowledge nor denied it’s really not theistic or atheistic. As christianity teaches us to bear our sorrows and grin. The Buddha looked at people being born, living in suffering and sickness and dying. He said none of these things need to be and that all suffering is self induced by ignorance understanding that our sorrows are self induced ignorance and can be stopped sounds better to me than endure your sorrows and bear it. Even if we can lay them at the cross IMO.
Catholic Doctrine is that consciousness is a property of spirit. Thus, it did not “arise” by any process of interaction of other entities. Spiritual beings are themselves created entities who have consciousness.Nothing started it all. It has been going on from beginningless time. But then again we know god is not in time. These comparative philosophies can get confusing unless you really know what you’re doing and understand it. I have no catholic alternative to dependent origination. That’s what I want is the catholic answer.
What, pray tell, might that be? I have never seen a plausible materialist account of consciousness. Buddhism at least makes an attempt. Materialists that I have seen attempt to sweep it under the rug.. . . materialist explanation of consciousness and its development. . . .
No. The soul is immortal, because it was originally created as the form of the human body, which was originally created to be immortal.I agree that the buddhist idea may not be explaining a biological component. God is timeless but is there some component of us that is timeless?
No, and even that is making three “entities” out of two or only one. God created spirit and matter, and a human being is a material spirit.God created body soul and spirit but is there something to us other than that.
Not sure where you’re getting your facts, here. Buddhism is Impersonalist. As such, there is no teaching in Buddhism of a Redemption. Salvation in Buddhism is from the cycle of becoming, and becoming is due to ignorance.Catholicism teaches the fall but not that there have continually been numerous “falls” and redemptions. They’re really not the same story.
Consciousness is NOT “really the indwelling of God.” That position is a rather succinct statement of what I call Atmanism.We do have one, I think. It’s called ‘fullness of life’. God is true Life as are the words and person of Jesus as is the Holy Spirit who is also God, the indweller. Consciousness (which is really the indwelling God) evolves only relatively to (and not dependent upon) our understanding of it because God is not diminished by our sin or ignorance, whatever the case may be. Our human spirit becomes more like God after it mingles with the indweller and, as an example, becomes familiar with it’s way, which in this world is selfless love in service of other.
The idea that there is a mystery of “how” the “spirit stays lodged in the body” is, again, apparently a nod to Atmanism. There is no “spirit” to “stay lodged.” That would be an Atman, and that is not the Christian concept of the soul. Rather, a human being IS a physical spirit, just as an angel is a pure spirit. Certainly, all of Creation is mysterious, but there is no particular mystery of “how” the human spirit and the human body remain united. It is, rather, a mystery, that we die. And we are informed by the Church that death is a punishment for sin, but also, that death is the means of our Redemption from sin.I agree that they are alive, plants and animals. Both may have their matter “assumed” by the human person through eating. So may minerals be assumed. All can do biological work.
The real mystery is how the spirit stays lodged in the body. Hindu philosophy says that the spirit is either in all of creation or in none. The sources I’ve read say that it’s bridge to the material universe is the sound OM. We say it is the holy Spirit of God and that man’s distance, remoteness, solitude, loginquitas, can be crossed over in one way.
On the idea of separation and isolation, I think that the answer of Jesus is superior to all others insofar as bridging the gap is concerned. How encouraging to think of a God who not only has a human body, but that this body is still alive, breathing, and will not deceive us with an alternate future form.
Catholic Doctrine is that consciousness is a property of spirit. Thus, it did not “arise” by any process of interaction of other entities. Spiritual beings are themselves created entities who have consciousness.
Both Buddhism and Catholicism treat consciousness as fundamental. Buddhism treats it as one of the aggregates of grasping whose confluence leads to existence and therefore suffering. Catholicism, by contrast, says that existence is a good, and suffering comes not from existence per se but from sin. Suffering is a consequence of sin, and in God’s omnipotence and perfect logic, He has taken that which is a consequence of sin and transformed it into the cause of our Redemption. So suffering, in Catholicism, is not something to be escaped, but something that has redemptive value. It is part of life, the part that we do not like, but in God’s Mercy, suffering in the state of grace carries merit and contributes to the Co-Redemption.