Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter blase6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blase6 said:
Looking closer at things in general gives a better and clearer image of what it is. Do you deny this?
Click to expand...
no, what you get is:
not seeing the forest for the trees
not seeing the trees for the cells
not seeing the cells for the molecules
not seeing the molecules for the atoms
not seeing the atoms for the subatomic particles
not seeing the subatomic particles because they cannot be seen, only inferred from things we can see
oh wait, i forgot:
not seeing the planet for the forests
not seeing the galaxy for the stars
not seeing the universe for the galaxies
 
Aloysium said:
no, what you get is:
not seeing the forest for the trees
not seeing the trees for the cells
not seeing the cells for the molecules
not seeing the molecules for the atoms
not seeing the atoms for the subatomic particles
not seeing the subatomic particles because they cannot be seen, only inferred from things we can see
oh wait, i forgot:
not seeing the planet for the forests
not seeing the galaxy for the stars
not seeing the universe for the galaxies
Click to expand...
Bingo. :whistle:
 
Aloysium said:
no, what you get is:
not seeing the forest for the trees
not seeing the trees for the cells
not seeing the cells for the molecules
not seeing the molecules for the atoms
not seeing the atoms for the subatomic particles
not seeing the subatomic particles because they cannot be seen, only inferred from things we can see
oh wait, i forgot:
not seeing the planet for the forests
not seeing the galaxy for the stars
not seeing the universe for the galaxies
Click to expand...
The trees are “more real” than the forest, because the forest is just an idea which comes from the combination of trees.
 
blase6 said:
The trees are “more real” than the forest, because the forest is just an idea which comes from the combination of trees.
Click to expand...
If you are a troll - success. What do I mean? We are destroying the lungs of the world because of this sort of short-sighted ignorance. It is not you. Far more intelligent people in this world are responsible for the mess we are creating for the future.
 
Aloysium said:
If you are a troll - success. What do I mean? We are destroying the lungs of the world because of this sort of short-sighted ignorance. It is not you. Far more intelligent people in this world are responsible for the mess we are creating for the future.
Click to expand...
Actually people with my thoughts on substance would more readily seek to protect the forests, because they more readily see that individual trees are the base reality, as opposed to people who think that as long as a few trees are there, the forest is still there.
 
It’s not exactly like this, but: youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A Mind-blowing right? Get the point?

This will be my last try:
Consider that there are interconnected systems within systems, made up of subsystems.
The term holistic has to do with is the observation that wholes are greater than the constituent parts. These wholes are things in themselves.
 
Aloysium said:
It’s not exactly like this, but: youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A Mind-blowing right? Get the point?

This will be my last try:
Consider that there are interconnected systems within systems, made up of subsystems.
The term holistic has to do with is the observation that wholes are greater than the constituent parts. These wholes are things in themselves.
Click to expand...
The whole can only be called “real” in the sense that it is the combination of parts. But the whole is not as real as the parts, it is just an idea derived from the parts.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
If the ancient Israelites could understand Moses when he told them that " He Who is. " sent me, I think modern students should understand what it means to exist.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you forgot what it is to be young, when all is new and unknown.
When a particular virus appeared had nothing to do with Aristotle’s definition of natures, substances, or essences. Nor does it mean God did not create them. The question is, is a virus or a cancer an invading substance/species, or are they accidental forms existing in the substance/nature of man.
Click to expand...
The question is how do we produce a cure, and no one engaged in that seems to find such classifications useful.
*I was asking what term you would use to name that common element which was shared by all the beings God created and that man was given the task to name and to use? What difference does it make that the people of the Bible were ignorant of cancer, bacteria, etc? We are still men and it is still our job to name and identify these things and discover the common " something " between them that makes them what they are… *
Click to expand...
Americans are only 5% of the world’s population but use 24% of the world’s energy, so I dispute the notion that other species exist purely for our use, I doubt God intended for us to rape the planet.

I thought Adam already finished the job of naming other species (although he omitted the dinosaurs and ebola) but if it’s our appointed task then we probably ought to do it to the best of our ability rather than follow a discredited speculative armchair philosophy.
You don’t jettison something just because those who know nothing about it say that it doesn’t make sense. I just point out that many Scholastic philosophers are also scientists and they don’t see a problem.
Click to expand...
By all means list some of the peer-reviewed papers in which these contemporary philosopher-scientists use scholasticism in their scientific research.
No, his categories are not intended as hierarchical. The ’ nature ’ of a substance is not in competition with universals laws ( and these are not truly universal ). But the nature of ’ cat ’ is universal in that it applies to all cats. The nature of man is universal in that it applies to all living people. The act of exsitence is truly universal since it applies to everything that is real, including God, Who is Actus Purus Subsistens. The terms ’ substance’ and ’ essence ’ are also truly universal.
Click to expand...
For instance he has a hierarchy from full potential (matter without form) to fully actual (God), or the hierarchy of the celestial spheres, or in less complex to more complex lifeforms.

We still use the phrase human nature but it is vague, since traits which might first appear natural (built-in) can turn out to vary by culture. And you can run a DNA test to determine whether a tissue sample is from a man or cat, but if you extract sodium chloride from both samples you’ll find no difference. So natures/substances/essences are too fuzzy to be useful.
It isn’t just that within each species they behave uniformly but that this uniformity of behaviors and characteristics points to an inner principle from which all this commonality originates. And that is their nature. From their nature flow all their characteristics and behaviors. Therefore we can say that a human nature is a composite of body and soul. Or we can say that the nature of a cat is that it is an animal which has four legs, a tail, whiskers, is very agile, very curious, eats small rodents, has up to two litters a year, etc. We can say that the nature of an angel is a spirit or pure form or essence limited only by its act of existence. The natures actually exist. And that is the real point.
Click to expand...
Some said those with white skin possessed a human nature which those with black skin did not. The moral problem with natures is who gets to decide what a nature does and doesn’t involve.

On the other hand the “substances” of different species are very similar and you have to look really hard with sophisticated equipment until you spot the real difference - the DNA.

Then, unlike vague natures, you can derive moral statements: Anyone with DNA which is sufficiently similar to allow reproduction with a human must thereby also be human, no argument. And each human’s DNA varies slightly hence we are each unique, we are each a person, we are not just substances.
Now that simply is not true. The Platonists and the Neo Platonists have always been popular to name just a couple.
Click to expand...
Que?
And if they just stuck to science I might agree. But they do insist on straying into philosophy.
Click to expand...
On the one hand you say everything is philosophy, on the other you want to fence off and unionize philosophy. A philosophy which can only succeed by silencing all other philosophies ain’t much of a philosophy imho.
 
Aloysium said:
Did anyone catch shown above:
youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A ?
twelve-core pc 26 weeks x 24 x 7 computing - I like fractals.
Click to expand...
Kool :cool:

I like this one, it’s not so deep but the palette and music fit well. I guess you must have programmed a zoom at some point, it’s a rite of passage. I’ve never really come to terms with how such a simple equation can produce such unexpected complexity - definitely proves the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
 
inocente said:
Perhaps you forgot what it is to be young, when all is new and unknown.

The question is how do we produce a cure, and no one engaged in that seems to find such classifications useful.

Americans are only 5% of the world’s population but use 24% of the world’s energy, so I dispute the notion that other species exist purely for our use, I doubt God intended for us to rape the planet.

I thought Adam already finished the job of naming other species (although he omitted the dinosaurs and ebola) but if it’s our appointed task then we probably ought to do it to the best of our ability rather than follow a discredited speculative armchair philosophy.

By all means list some of the peer-reviewed papers in which these contemporary philosopher-scientists use scholasticism in their scientific research.

For instance he has a hierarchy from full potential (matter without form) to fully actual (God), or the hierarchy of the celestial spheres, or in less complex to more complex lifeforms.

We still use the phrase human nature but it is vague, since traits which might first appear natural (built-in) can turn out to vary by culture. And you can run a DNA test to determine whether a tissue sample is from a man or cat, but if you extract sodium chloride from both samples you’ll find no difference. So natures/substances/essences are too fuzzy to be useful.

Some said those with white skin possessed a human nature which those with black skin did not. The moral problem with natures is who gets to decide what a nature does and doesn’t involve.

On the other hand the “substances” of different species are very similar and you have to look really hard with sophisticated equipment until you spot the real difference - the DNA.

Then, unlike vague natures, you can derive moral statements: Anyone with DNA which is sufficiently similar to allow reproduction with a human must thereby also be human, no argument. And each human’s DNA varies slightly hence we are each unique, we are each a person, we are not just substances.

Que?

On the one hand you say everything is philosophy, on the other you want to fence off and unionize philosophy. A philosophy which can only succeed by silencing all other philosophies ain’t much of a philosophy imho.
Click to expand...
I guess you are pulling my leg again. I really don’t see anything here but red hearings, and some ill founded over generalizations. I guess the subject is a joke to you and not worth discussing seriously - which is the typical modern attitude. 😦

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I guess you are pulling my leg again. I really don’t see anything here but red hearings, and some ill founded over generalizations. I guess the subject is a joke to you and not worth discussing seriously - which is the typical modern attitude. 😦
Click to expand...
Either the modern world and modern education and modern science and modern philosophy are all wrong, or you are, and if you can’t argue your corner then that seems to answer that conundrum.

If it were a joke to me I wouldn’t have spent all that time responding to you. At no point have I treated it as a joke, while yet again you’ve run out of answers other than to holler that you’re the only one smart enough to see the glorious finery of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Until we meet again. Don’t worry, you’ll get the hang of this reasoning business one day. 😃
 
inocente said:
Either the modern world and modern education and modern science and modern philosophy are all wrong, or you are, and if you can’t argue your corner then that seems to answer that conundrum.

If it were a joke to me I wouldn’t have spent all that time responding to you. At no point have I treated it as a joke, while yet again you’ve run out of answers other than to holler that you’re the only one smart enough to see the glorious finery of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Until we meet again. Don’t worry, you’ll get the hang of this reasoning business one day. 😃
Click to expand...
It is always a pleasure to discuss things with someone who knows absolutely that you are always wrong and they are always right.

Cheers
Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
It is always a pleasure to discuss things with someone who knows absolutely that you are always wrong and they are always right.

Cheers
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You seem to constantly defend the philosophy of Aquinas as the absolute truth and the only plausible explanation of reality. But you also seem to be faltering a little recently. I’m not sure.
 
blase6 said:
You seem to constantly defend the philosophy of Aquinas as the absolute truth and the only plausible explanation of reality. But you also seem to be faltering a little recently. I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Aquinas was absolutley right agout everything, because he was not. But I do defend him when I think he has the best answer. But I do believe the Catholic Church teaches the absolute truth about faith and morals. So where have I been faltering lately?

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t think Aquinas was absolutley right agout everything, because he was not. But I do defend him when I think he has the best answer. But I do believe the Catholic Church teaches the absolute truth about faith and morals. So where have I been faltering lately?

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
It seems like when you started those topics on what “substance” and “nature” mean that you started to be open to other understandings of those ideas. But I really don’t know what you think.
 
blase6 said:
It seems like when you started those topics on what “substance” and “nature” mean that you started to be open to other understandings of those ideas. But I really don’t know what you think.
Click to expand...
Well, I think I have been pretty consistent. I can’t think where I have changed my thinking.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top