Non Existence, explain this

[Areopagite]

You are rejecting metaphysics for epistemology. Logic and its premises are established in epistemology. There are philosophers who have rejected the logical premises of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity. Those are pure abstracts and have no reality, even if we do find them useful, most of the time.

Well, that’s one view. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be holding the Kantian view that our mind imposes meaning on reality whereas the Thomistic and Aristotlelian view (the Realist view as it is called) is that reality imposes meaning on our minds. Though we can come up with abstracts, that doesn’t mean it does not pertain to reality. *The principle of non-contradiction states that nothing can be and not be in the same way at the same time. *You can say that’s abstract, but it referring to something about being and reality.

Now, it is true that I was talking about metaphysics from the perspective of our knowledge (and perhaps that’s why you thought I was merely talking about epistemology). Whenever I give a statement or give a fact … we are going to be talking about what we know … but that doesn’t mean it’s epistemology … or, at least, it’s not solely epistemology to the exclusion of metaphysics. It seems like you are saying that all fields of knowledge (whether it is mathematics, physics, history, and literature) should actually all be called epistemology because they all have to do with knowledge. But that might be a gross exaggeration of your argument.

But I’ll give you a few other metaphysical statements about reality (because surely you are not asking for ALL of them … if you are … read Aristotle’s Metaphysics and that’ll give you a pretty good overview, I guess … or else ask me very specifically about what kind(s) of thing you want to know).

• As I’ve already mentioned, the **principle of non-contradiction, **though abstract, is about something true in reality, namely that nothing can be and not be in the same way and at the same time. Since that pertains to being and reality, that principle falls under metaphysics first, not epistemology nor logic. This is because metaphysics transcends all other knowledge and what truths it shares with other knowledge, metaphysics claims that those truths belong to it first. Philosophers, of course, who deny the principles of non-contradiction are of course crazy. They might as well affirm it as well, because they wouldn’t be contradicting themselves. Those who throw that away throw all knowledge away and have no business thinking at all.
• **Substance is a kind of being that which exists in itself. ** This is the primary kind of being, that which does not exist in another but stands apart.
• Accident is another kind of being that must exist in a substance in order to exist. For example, a man would be a substance, but his particular height would be an accident. “Height” exist, it’s a form of being, but it must exist in a substance because you cannot have pure height existing in itself. (it, of course, can become abstract in the mind … but there it is in the mind, and not existing by itself). I am of course referring here to the 10 categories of being, which I can elaborate more, if you wish.
• Form is that which determines what kind of thing a being is. Both substance and accident have forms. The form of human determines what kind of thing I am, whereas the form of blue determines what kind of accident a particular quality is with color.
• Matter is the physical principle that is organized by physical forms. Matter cannot exist without form, because it is always in some form.

I could go on, but perhaps I shall wait for a reply, lest I babble on in the wrong direction.

Granted that these are abstract things but they are metaphysical concepts because they pertain to reality. They are not simply conjured in the darkness of our minds, because I assert that our minds actually do perceive reality, counter to some philosophical claim by non-realists. If we cannot know reality in itself, if we don’t make that assumption, that leap of faith, then I suppose all knowledge is a kind of self-centered epistemology and not regarding any knowledge of reality but merely of our mind.

 

[geometer]

What is the point of asking for logical proof when logic is invalid? In fact, how does one invalidate logic according to logic? The arguments have been given tons of times. Perhaps you are not capable of understanding them.

I haven’t asked for any logical proofs. This is how everyone in this thread is mistaken. You believe that the facts of reality come from logic. No, sorry that is not what reality is about.

The definition of the word fact is basically, ‘something that happened’. I am asking about what you have learned about reality. Forget about what you have read, that is not primary learning about reality. For instance the law of non-contradiction is a law that governs logic. Logic is simply the methodical use of logical language. Logic is the after thought, the experience must come first in knowledge, then the description.

 

[Areopagite]

I haven’t asked for any logical proofs. This is how everyone in this thread is mistaken. You believe that the facts of reality come from logic. No, sorry that is not what reality is about.

The definition of the word fact is basically, ‘something that happened’. I am asking about what you have learned about reality. Forget about what you have read, that is not primary learning about reality. For instance the law of non-contradiction is a law that governs logic. Logic is simply the methodical use of logical language. Logic is the after thought, the experience must come first in knowledge, then the description.

Yeah, I think I agree with you here. I never said that the facts of reality come from logic. In fact, I think you could say, that there are no facts in logic. Logic necessarily needs premises gathered from elsewhere to operate its syllogisms. Nonetheless, the principle of non-contradiction, most importantly, is something that is immediately intuited … you could, I think, call that experienced. This principle cannot be proven by logic and thus not a principle to logic but a principle in the study of metaphysics because metaphysics by definition is a thing that studies first principles. First principles are grasped not because of being convinced by a logical argument … it cannot even be proved. If first principles can be proved, then they wouldn’t be first principles, because there would be principles before that (G.K. Chesterton said that).

I* am not saying that the study of metaphysics comes up with the principle of non-contradiction*, it merely is one of the key objects of its study. Thus, the principle is called a metaphysical truth.

Does that make sense?

 

[geometer]

I* am not saying that the study of metaphysics comes up with the principle of non-contradiction*, it merely is one of the key objects of its study. Thus, the principle is called a metaphysical truth.

Does that make sense?

Non-contradiction can only be studied where is has been applied in logical language, and that is epistemology to study applications of logic.

The metaphysics that you are familiar with has nothing to do with reality as a whole. You are simply playing mind games with purely mental principles.

I vaguely recall the work by Aristotle entitled metaphysics. I had thought that his first principles were not rules but they were water, air, fire, and earth. Purely mental metaphysics came later, and is probably pointless.

 

[AndyF]

Likewise, “a conceptual being which has no actual existence being able to make an actual decision to exist or not exist” cannot be conceptualized because surely it is not possible for a purely potential thing to do an actual thing…

This thread has gone far. Way back I posited an idea using the information we know about the creation of people and animals. God is capable of mixing natures and creating souls of different life spans and purposes. From here it is no great leap to envisage a temporary soul with the purpose of answering the primary question of the choice of choices on the behalf of the permanent human soul.(“Do you wish to exist.”) So we are still talking circles within circles, not squares. Do you at least find my reasoning sound based on the facts?

I hope this objection has been refuted in my last post, for I showed there are different kinds/levels of goodness, ones that did not solely pertain…

Yes I understand. But goodness is relative to this reality, unless a goodness can directly effect a conceptual person.

If I don’t exist then not sharing in the goodness of my existing can have no effect on me. Agree/Not agree?

Reviewing the analogy of the forced conscription. A sailor may be wrenched from the comforts of his existence(home and family) and pressed for service in another existence(ship). The captain may try to convince the sailor that his being there is good. So the sailor’s point of view would be derived from the benefits of his state(potential whipping,scurvy,roughhousing) weighed against what he had before(contentment,non intrusion,etc). The captain has everything going for him and everything is good.

In your last post, when you talk about the dignity of things, I really start to lose you and fail to see the point being made. Especially here …
Clay pots can’t know anything obviously … I’m confused.

Sorry, I should have quoted the passage. Rom 9,20-21 I admit this passage has me perplexed, not by the general message but by the sentence. Directly referring to a human was the better choice I think. The point is that on occasion we get subtle indicators of our true worth.

existence is not coerced. Coercion has to do with going against our will.

Yes. So we can see a requirement for a Primary choice.

That is because, once again, we cannot will anything so long as we don’t exist.

A minor technicality. See above.

Once again, as said by many saints, the souls in hell are better off than the souls that never existed, because the former has more actual being.

Being a saint pretty well restricts their opinions and free thought.

Good points and I agree on most of this stuff we discussed. Actually we did pretty good keeping the thread in line.

Andy

 

[Areopagite]

Non-contradiction can only be studied where is has been applied in logical language, and that is epistemology to study applications of logic.

No, I don’t think so. I might be wrong but logical language is based on the principle of non-contradiction. It is in looking at the principle of non-contradiction that logical language is able to be formulated. Not the other way around. Or is that no what you’re saying?

Also, if you are saying that the principle of non-contradiction and logic are only things of epistemology, I would disagree … because those things are used in every field of knowledge, not just epistemology. Math, Physics, History, Theology, Political Science all use the principle of non-contradiction and logic.

Epistemology is the study of how we can know, of course. Metaphysics is the study of truth that is required for all knowledge. The principle of non-contradiction is necessary for all knowledge, thus metaphysics studies it. Sure, epistemology studies the principle too since it pertains to knowledge, but as soon as you start studying it and its ramifications on reality (that nothing can never be and not be in the same way at the same time … a thing true about reality and not just a thing in our mind) then you’ve formally wandered away from epistemology and into metaphysics. When you are talking about our knowledge regarding things as they really are opposed to our knowledge regarding how we perceive them … then its metaphysics. And the principle of non-contradiction is something in our knowledge that pertains to things as they are (i.e. being) opposed to our knowledge of how we perceive them. This is true, for if you look at the principle it states nothing about the mind but about being itself.

The metaphysics that you are familiar with has nothing to do with reality as a whole. You are simply playing mind games with purely mental principles.

Nothing to do with reality as a whole? Doesn’t being and existence have to do with reality as a whole? I think the answer might be yes on that one. If not, why? What do you know about reality that makes you conclude that being and existence do not pertain to reality as a whole? What is reality then in your opinion?

Once again, I have no problem talking about abstract concepts and believing that they pertain to reality. In fact, it’s impossible not to do that. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by “purely mental principles.” Does “purely” mean that it is completely unrelated to reality. How is existence and being not related to reality? I need some specifics too why you deny that substance, accident, form, and matter are not related to reality. The mind bases those concepts on reality. Why would you assume otherwise? You must have a reason. In fact, prove that those mental concepts do not pertain to reality.

You might ask me to do the same: prove that those mental concepts do pertain to reality. But this, sadly, I cannot do. This is because it is a leap of necessary faith to assume that our thoughts have anything to do with reality at all. G.K. Chesterton shows this in his book Orthodoxy…

That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself.
Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next
generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one
set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching
the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought.
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith.
Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert
that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are
merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question,
“Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction?
Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic?
They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?”
The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.”
But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right
to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.

Nonetheless, I will assume you cannot prove that our thoughts don’t have anything to do with reality. It can’t be proven either way. Phenomenology, of course, is big into avoiding that question altogether. But, being a realist and someone of common sense, and one feels that my mind does have some meaningful sense of the outside world, I am going to take a leap of faith and believe that my mind can see reality as it really is (though perhaps only to a small degree … which is better than nothing).

Off the top of my head, I don’t know if Aristotle espoused the ideas of the four elements. He probably did. If not, you’re probably thinking of Empedocles, who was a Pre-Socratic and a materialist. In either case, Aristotle’s metaphysics is not bound up necessarily with those ancient elements. I have met award-winning physicists who claim Aristotle’s metaphysics is compatible with modern-day science. In fact, Aristotle very much opposed Empedocles in a lot of absurdities that flowed from that idea of Air, Earth, Fire, and Water. The Metaphysics is a hard book of course, perhaps requiring familiarity of many terms and whatnot, but debatably one of the best, if not the best work of philosophy of all time.

That’s my opinion, of course, but I’ve heard that from other people too.

 

[AndyF]

I said that nothing is a negation of being, it is not a thing in itself. In earlier posts i argued that positive statements about existence cannot be used on that which has no existence, no reality.

Ok I missed that. sorry.

You are saying that some kind of abuse is taking place by a persons existing.

But if existence is good by nature of being,

A conclusion drawn by a being who experiences absolute good.
In the existing state, assured good is the destiny of God. For the rest of the creatures good is a challenge with accompanying risk of failure.

So I guess we can say there are various value systems
in the existing state.

Can non existence be good by nature of not being? Sounds like nonsense, but we can say with reasonable accuracy that a person not existing isn’t suffering or being abused.

Andy

 

[geometer]

Metaphysics

I have read the first link. He gives a survey of the presocratics and Socrates. So far, first principles are quite an assortment of different kinds of things…

 

[Areopagite]

God is capable of mixing natures and creating souls of different life spans and purposes. From here it is no great leap to envisage a temporary soul with the purpose of answering the primary question of the choice of choices on the behalf of the permanent human soul.(“Do you wish to exist.”) So we are still talking circles within circles, not squares. Do you at least find my reasoning sound based on the facts?

Well, almost. But there’s some more problems. While it is true that a soul is immortal, God can technically take away its existence (so you’re right about that). However, the idea that a human soul could exist prior to having a body is fraught with trouble. In fact, I think that idea has officially been condemned by the Church. They have formally canonized the Aristotlelian and Thomistic idea that the soul and the body are created both at once. Are you familiar with this? If you don’t believe that, then its just a hop skip and a jump to gnosticism and the idea that our body doesn’t matter at all, bringing into question the value of the resurrection.

So, that’s kind of a major problem.

There is also the other issue I mentioned a few posts before about God’s metaphysical simplicity. That is, there are no divisions in him (except the mysterious Trinitarian persons of course). Thus, His existence IS His essence (which took me awhile to understand). So, it is His nature to exist, whereas for creatures, their essence and existence is separate. Thus it is possible for creatures not to exist because it is not in the nature to necessarily exist. Since God is His essence, without any divisions, and he has all being in Him, we can say that God is love, and God mercy, and God is justice, and God is Existence too.

Thus, if you reject existence, you reject God, I would argue, because God IS Existence. You would also be rejecting Justice too then as well as everything about God and everything that exists. Such a thing requires damnation, I would say. Maybe I made a leap of logic somewhere.

Yes I understand. But goodness is relative to this reality, unless a goodness can directly effect a conceptual person.

Well goodness in the ultimate sense is relative to God, so thus things with more being are closer to God and thus are better than things with less being.

If I don’t exist then not sharing in the goodness of my existing can have no effect on me. Agree/Not agree?

I agree. But what was your point again?

Good points and I agree on most of this stuff we discussed. Actually we did pretty good keeping the thread in line.

Indeed. We have. It has been most enjoyable.

Lastly, I want to give a G.K. Chesterton quote. This might stimulate some ideas (somewhat dramatically) and I won’t comment on it … yet …

Not only is
suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil,
the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take
the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man.
The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned
he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered)
than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings:
it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds;
but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed,
even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief
compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them.
But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it.
He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake.
There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death
is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves
might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury:
for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be
pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape,
and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear
ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much
more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads
and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal
automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart.
The man’s crime is different from other crimes–for it makes even
crimes impossible.

 

[centurionguard]

Well, almost. But there’s some more problems. While it is true that a soul is immortal, God can technically take away its existence (so you’re right about that). However, the idea that a human soul could exist prior to having a body is fraught with trouble. In fact, I think that idea has officially been condemned by the Church. They have formally canonized the Aristotlelian and Thomistic idea that the soul and the body are created both at once. Are you familiar with this? If you don’t believe that, then its just a hop skip and a jump to gnosticism and the idea that our body doesn’t matter at all, bringing into question the value of the resurrection.

So, that’s kind of a major problem.

There is also the other issue I mentioned a few posts before about God’s metaphysical simplicity. That is, there are no divisions in him (except the mysterious Trinitarian persons of course). Thus, His existence IS His essence (which took me awhile to understand). So, it is His nature to exist, whereas for creatures, their essence and existence is separate. Thus it is possible for creatures not to exist because it is not in the nature to necessarily exist. Since God is His essence, without any divisions, and he has all being in Him, we can say that God is love, and God mercy, and God is justice, and God is Existence too.

Thus, if you reject existence, you reject God, I would argue, because God IS Existence. You would also be rejecting Justice too then as well as everything about God and everything that exists. Such a thing requires damnation, I would say. Maybe I made a leap of logic somewhere.

Well goodness in the ultimate sense is relative to God, so thus things with more being are closer to God and thus are better than things with less being.

I agree. But what was your point again?

Indeed. We have. It has been most enjoyable.

Lastly, I want to give a G.K. Chesterton quote. This might stimulate some ideas (somewhat dramatically) and I won’t comment on it … yet …

I would tend to agree for the most part of what you state here about suicide.
I myself was caught up in the depressive folly of seriously contemplating suicide at one time having been gang-raped and tortured at gunpoint. It might be easy some people including Catholics to prejudge a person who is overwhelmed by such a depressive state of despair. Then again how many Catholics can truly say that they themselves have been tested by God and had to endure the savage hell of being actually gang-raped and tortured ? It is a damned hell beyond compare. And unless one has been raped and tortured nobody, no Catholic has a damned clue what it is to have one’s body and soul stripped from ones being after going through the God forsaken hell of a damned to hell rape. It never ceases to amaze me how people including some Catholics minimize traumatic S**T they don’t understand.

 

[centurionguard]

MY APOLOGIES

I let my emotions get way out of hand.

 

[Areopagite]

MY APOLOGIES

I let my emotions get way out of hand.

I don’t blame you whatsoever. You’re actually a great inspiration to me now.

And, I also believe that in many cases of suicide, due to emotional trauma, one’s passions can overwhelm a person’s reason so much, against their will, that they are not culpable for their actions. They may even be a saint, while pulling the trigger. We never know.

God Bless you for who you are. And thank God that you are still here.